I have this piece of code and I want a good method to stop the consumer threads:
import java.util.ArrayDeque;
import java.util.Queue;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;
public class Foo {
private final Queue<Object> queue;
private final AtomicBoolean doneReading;
private final int numberOfThreads = 4, N = 100;
public Foo() {
queue = new ArrayDeque<>();
doneReading = new AtomicBoolean(false);
}
public void execute() throws InterruptedException {
Thread[] threads = new Thread[numberOfThreads];
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++) {
threads[i] = new Thread(() -> {
try {
synchronized (queue) {
while (!doneReading.get() || !queue.isEmpty()) {
if (queue.isEmpty()) {
queue.wait();
if (!queue.isEmpty()) {
Object element = queue.remove();
// Do stuff
}
}
else {
Object element = queue.remove();
// Do stuff
}
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
});
threads[i].start();
}
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
synchronized (queue) {
queue.add(new Object());
queue.notifyAll();
}
}
doneReading.set(true);
synchronized (queue) {
queue.notifyAll();
}
for (Thread thread : threads) {
thread.join();
}
}
}
Basically, when I have read all the data that needs to be processed, I want the consumer threads to stop. I tried while(!doneReading.get()) but this does not guarantee that there aren't any leftover items in the queue. I added !queue.isEmpty(), but in this case some threads keep on waiting even though they won't receive any notification. So I managed that I should call notifyAll() once more. This does seem to work. I also thought of adding a null in the queue, and whenever the consumer reads a null, it exits the while. Which method is better, or are there any better ideas?
One usual method is a "poison pill". Put a special value in the queue that when read kills the consumer threads. This allows them to process all of the values and not stop until they read past the final value and read the poison pill.
Some more info: https://java-design-patterns.com/patterns/poison-pill/
I also like these websites, they often have thoughtful information on Java programming:
https://mkyong.com/java/java-blockingqueue-examples/
https://www.baeldung.com/java-blocking-queue
class LimitedQueue<T> {
ArrayDeque<T> queue = new ArrayDeque<>();
boolean done = false;
synchronized void add (T item) {
queue.add(item);
notifyAll();
}
synchronized void done()
done=true;
notifyAll();
}
// most complex method
// waits until next item or done signal is put
synchronized boolean isDone() {
for (;;) {
if (!queue.isEmpty(){
return false;
}
if (done) {
return true;
}
wait();
}
}
syncronized T remove() {
return deque.remove();
}
}
LimitedQueue<Object> queue = new LimitedQueue<>();
class ConsumerThread extends Thread {
public void run(){
while (!queue.isDone()) {
Object element = queue.remove();
// do stuff
}
}
}
class ProducerThread extends Thread {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) ,{
queue.add(new Object());
}
queue.done();
}
}
Related
I've been trying to make a simple implementation of Thread-Pool using Active Objects.
Here is my Main:
public static void main(String[] args){
MyThreadPool tp = new MyThreadPool(100,3);
tp.execute(()->{
try { Thread.sleep(5*1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println("42");
});
tp.shutDown();
}
The shutDown method is usually called first through the Main and therefore keeps the Active Objects "alive" unwantedly, but sometimes I get the wanted outcome.
Any idea why there is uncertainty about the result?
Below you can see the rest of the classes:
public class MyThreadPool {
ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable> q;
ArrayBlockingQueue<ActiveObject> activeObjects;
volatile boolean stop;
AtomicInteger count;
Thread t;
Runnable stopTask;
public MyThreadPool(int capacity, int maxThreads) {
activeObjects = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(maxThreads);
q = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(capacity);
count = new AtomicInteger(0);
stopTask = ()->stop = true;
t=new Thread(()->{
//System.out.println("Thread-Pool Started");
while(!stop){
//if queue is empty it is gonna be a blocking call
try {
Runnable task = q.take();
if(task==stopTask)
stopTask.run();
else
//size() is atomic integer
if (count.get() < maxThreads) {
ActiveObject a = new ActiveObject(capacity);
activeObjects.put(a);
count.incrementAndGet();
a.execute(task);
}
//we will assign the next task to the least busy ActiveObject
else {
int minSize = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
ActiveObject choice = null;
for (ActiveObject a : activeObjects) {
if (a.size() < minSize) {
minSize = a.size();
choice = a;
}
}
choice.execute(task);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
//System.out.println("Thread-Pool Ended");
});
t.start();
}
//execute returns right away - just puts into the queue
public void execute(Runnable r ){
// if capacity is full it is gonna be a blocking call
if(!stop)
try { q.put(r); } catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
public void shutDownNow(){
activeObjects.forEach(a->a.shutDownNow());
stop = true;
t.interrupt();
}
public void shutDown(){
activeObjects.forEach(a->a.shutDown());
execute(stopTask);
}
public class ActiveObject {
ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable> q;
volatile boolean stop;
Thread t;
public ActiveObject(int capacity) {
q = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(capacity);
t=new Thread(()->{
//System.out.println("Active Object Started");
while(!stop){
//if queue is empty it is gonna be a blocking call
try {
q.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
//System.out.println("Active Object Ended");
});
t.start();
}
//execute returns right away - just puts into the queue
public void execute(Runnable r ){
// if capacity is full it is gonna be a blocking call
if(!stop)
try { q.put(r); } catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
public void shutDownNow(){
stop = true;
t.interrupt();
}
public void shutDown(){
execute(()->stop=true);
}
public int size(){
return q.size();
}
}
In your main method you create a thread pool (which also creates and starts tp.t thread), enqueue a task into tp.q, and then call tp.shutDown():
MyThreadPool tp = new MyThreadPool(100, 3);
tp.execute(() -> {...});
tp.shutDown();
Imagine that tp.shutDown() in the main thread is executed before the MyThreadPool.t thread processes the enqueued task:
activeObjects.forEach(a -> a.shutDown());
execute(stopTask);
here activeObjects is empty, you enqueue stopTask into tp.q, and main thread finishes.
Now we only have MyThreadPool.t thread, let's see what it does:
while (!stop) {
try {
Runnable task = q.take();
if (task == stopTask)
stopTask.run();
else
if (count.get() < maxThreads) {
ActiveObject a = new ActiveObject(capacity);
activeObjects.put(a);
count.incrementAndGet();
a.execute(task);
}
else {
...
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
At this point q contains 2 tasks: a normal task and stopTask.
In the first loop iteration the normal task is taken from q, and is given for processing to a newly created ActiveObject:
ActiveObject a = new ActiveObject(capacity);
activeObjects.put(a);
count.incrementAndGet();
a.execute(task);
new ActiveObject() also creates and starts its own internal ActiveObject.t thread.
The second loop iteration processes stopTask:
if (task == stopTask)
stopTask.run();
which sets stop = true.
As a result, the next check while (!stop) returns false and MyThreadPool.t thread finishes.
Now we only have ActiveObject.t thread, which hasn't been stopped:
while (!stop) {
try {
q.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
here the thread will keep waiting on q.take() forever.
I use semaphore and I want when list size is zero thread waiting for other thread But Why doesn't the semaphore stop thrading? Doesn't the semaphore work like notify and wait?
result:
add
remove
add
Exception in thread "Thread-2" java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 0, Size: 0
ArrayList<String> list = new ArrayList<>();
Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(0);
new Producer(list, semaphore).start();
new Producer(list, semaphore).start();
new Customeer(list, semaphore).start();
new Customeer(list, semaphore).start();
//////////
static class Customeer extends Thread {
private List<String> list;
private Semaphore semaphore;
public Customeer(List<String> list, Semaphore semaphore) {
this.list = list;
this.semaphore = semaphore;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (list) {
if (list.size() == 0) {
try {
semaphore.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
list.remove(0);
System.out.println("remove");
}
}
}
static class Producer extends Thread {
private Semaphore semaphore;
private List<String> list;
public Producer(List<String> list, Semaphore semaphore) {
this.list = list;
this.semaphore = semaphore;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (list) {
list.add("hello");
semaphore.release();
System.out.println("add");
}
}
}
}
you seem to be confused with semaphores and synchronization. semaphores is used when you want to allow n threads to access the same resource at a time. [n can be 1] while synchronization is used if you want to allow only 1 thread to access the resource.
solution using semaphores
// Java implementation of a producer and consumer
// that use semaphores to control synchronization.
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
class Q {
// an item
int item;
// semCon initialized with 0 permits
// to ensure put() executes first
static Semaphore semCon = new Semaphore(0);
static Semaphore semProd = new Semaphore(1);
// to get an item from buffer
void get()
{
try {
// Before consumer can consume an item,
// it must acquire a permit from semCon
semCon.acquire();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException caught");
}
// consumer consuming an item
System.out.println("Consumer consumed item : " + item);
// After consumer consumes the item,
// it releases semProd to notify producer
semProd.release();
}
// to put an item in buffer
void put(int item)
{
try {
// Before producer can produce an item,
// it must acquire a permit from semProd
semProd.acquire();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException caught");
}
// producer producing an item
this.item = item;
System.out.println("Producer produced item : " + item);
// After producer produces the item,
// it releases semCon to notify consumer
semCon.release();
}
}
// Producer class
class Producer implements Runnable {
Q q;
Producer(Q q)
{
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Producer").start();
}
public void run()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
// producer put items
q.put(i);
}
}
// Consumer class
class Consumer implements Runnable {
Q q;
Consumer(Q q)
{
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Consumer").start();
}
public void run()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
// consumer get items
q.get();
}
}
// Driver class
class PC {
public static void main(String args[])
{
// creating buffer queue
Q q = new Q();
// starting consumer thread
new Consumer(q);
// starting producer thread
new Producer(q);
}
}
solution using synchronized
// Java program to implement solution of producer
// consumer problem.
import java.util.LinkedList;
public class Threadexample {
public static void main(String[] args)
throws InterruptedException
{
// Object of a class that has both produce()
// and consume() methods
final PC pc = new PC();
// Create producer thread
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run()
{
try {
pc.produce();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
// Create consumer thread
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run()
{
try {
pc.consume();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
// Start both threads
t1.start();
t2.start();
// t1 finishes before t2
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
// This class has a list, producer (adds items to list
// and consumber (removes items).
public static class PC {
// Create a list shared by producer and consumer
// Size of list is 2.
LinkedList<Integer> list = new LinkedList<>();
int capacity = 2;
// Function called by producer thread
public void produce() throws InterruptedException
{
int value = 0;
while (true) {
synchronized (this)
{
// producer thread waits while list
// is full
while (list.size() == capacity)
wait();
System.out.println("Producer produced-"
+ value);
// to insert the jobs in the list
list.add(value++);
// notifies the consumer thread that
// now it can start consuming
notify();
// makes the working of program easier
// to understand
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
}
// Function called by consumer thread
public void consume() throws InterruptedException
{
while (true) {
synchronized (this)
{
// consumer thread waits while list
// is empty
while (list.size() == 0)
wait();
// to retrive the ifrst job in the list
int val = list.removeFirst();
System.out.println("Consumer consumed-"
+ val);
// Wake up producer thread
notify();
// and sleep
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
}
}
}
read the resources for more clarity
semaphore: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/producer-consumer-solution-using-semaphores-java/
synchronized: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/producer-consumer-solution-using-threads-java/
public class SemaphoreWithQueues implements Semaphore {
private List<Object> queue;
private AtomicInteger current = new AtomicInteger(0);
private int permits;
public SemaphoreWithQueues(int permits) {
this.permits = permits;
this.queue = Collections.synchronizedList(new LinkedList<>());
}
#Override
public void enter() throws InterruptedException {
if (current.get() < permits) {
current.incrementAndGet();
} else {
Object block = new Object();
synchronized (block) {
queue.add(block);
block.wait();
current.incrementAndGet();
}
}
}
#Override
public void leave() {
if(queue.size() != 0) {
Object block = queue.get(0);
queue.remove(0);
synchronized (block) {
block.notify(); //Unblock quenue
}
}
current.decrementAndGet();
//current lessen and current thread have time come in block if(...)
// in enter() faster then another thread increased current
}
}
> The program usually output:
>
> 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2
**Where run() of both threads is almost the same, such as:**
public void run(){
for (int i = 0; i <5; i++) {
try {
semaphore.enter();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println(e);
}
System.out.println(2);
semaphore.leave();
}
}
There are 2 threads using this semaphore. When 1 thread increases the queue, the second is waiting, the problem is that if we extracted the object from quene and unblocked it, then the thread that finished leave() start enter() faster and again increments the counter, while the awaked thread also increments the counter, current = 2, and the list is empty.
SORRY FOR BAD ENGLISH
There are many problems in the code.
Synchronization: Synchronization should be done for a shareable
resource. Why it is done for a local object which has scope only for
that method.
Object block = new Object();
synchronized (block) {
Both current and queue are independent properties, they should be
synchronized together.
Now let's come to point If you really want to create a semaphore using Queue. You do not need all this logic. You can use existing Java class e.g. BlockingQueue. Here is the implementation
class SemaphoreWithQueues implements Semaphore{
private BlockingQueue<Integer> queue;
public SemaphoreWithQueues(int permits) {
if(queue == null){
queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(permits);
}
}
public void enter() {
queue.offer(1);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " got a permit.");
}
public void leave() throws InterruptedException {
queue.take();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " left the permit.");
}
}
And Task to use the semaphore
class Task implements Runnable {
private SemaphoreWithQueues semaphore;
public Task(SemaphoreWithQueues semaphore){
this.semaphore = semaphore;
}
public void run(){
for (int i = 0; i <5; i++) {
semaphore.enter();
try {
semaphore.leave();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SemaphoreWithQueues semaphoreWithQueues = new SemaphoreWithQueues(5);
Thread th1 = new Thread(new Task(semaphoreWithQueues));
Thread th2 = new Thread(new Task(semaphoreWithQueues));
Thread th3 = new Thread(new Task(semaphoreWithQueues));
th1.start();
th2.start();
th3.start();
}
}
But personally I do not like using Queue to create Semaphores, as it wastes memory unnecessary by creating elements in queue. Despite of this you can create a semaphore using single shareable object with permits using wait and notify mechanism. You can try with this approach. If you would like.
Here's my code:
public class ProducerConsumer
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
ProduceCosumeData p = new ProduceCosumeData();
ProducerT pt= new ProducerT(p); // with p obj i am creating thread
ConsumerT ct=new ConsumerT(p); // with same p obj i am creating thread
pt.start();
ct.start(); //i am starting 2 threads
}
}
class ProduceCosumeData
{
boolean flag;
public synchronized void printStringP(int n)
{
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
try{
if(flag) //for frist time flag is flase so, wait will skip
wait();
else
flag=true; //for next time onwards wait() will get call
System.out.print("Pay");
notify();//after this why my wait() not canceling in inprintStringC()
}catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.print(e);
}
}
}
public synchronized void printStringC(int n)
{
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
try{
wait(); // why it is not out of this after notify()
System.out.print("Tm");
notify();
}catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.print(e);
}
}
}
}
class ProducerT extends Thread
{
ProduceCosumeData p;
ProducerT(ProduceCosumeData p)
{
this.p=p; // i am saving the same obj for both threads
}
public void run()
{
p.printStringP(10); //it will print 10 times pay
}
}
class ConsumerT extends Thread
{
ProduceCosumeData p;
ConsumerT(ProduceCosumeData p)
{
this.p=p; // i am saving the same obj for both threads
}
public void run()
{
p.printStringC(10); //it will print 10 times tm
}
}
I am expecting the following output:
PayTm
PayTm
PayTm
... 10 times
but what I'm getting output is this:
Pay..
This is followed by a long wait.
The above two functions are in same object.
Why is the notify not releasing the wait() function? Even when I use notifyAll(), the output remains the same.
In you code, one of your threads is calling notify and the other is still not waiting. This produces a deadlock with both threads waiting.
You need to fix your use of the synchronization flag, don't call wait if it is not needed. Also, checking the locking condition is still available after the wait() is a good practice.
This is your ProduceConsumeData class with the use of the flag fixed:
class ProduceCosumeData
{
boolean flag;
public synchronized void printStringP(int n)
{
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
try{
while (flag == true) {
wait();
}
flag=true;
System.out.print("Pay");
notify();
}catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.print(e);
}
}
}
public synchronized void printStringC(int n)
{
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
try{
while(flag == false) {
wait();
}
System.out.print("Tm");
flag = false;
notify();
}catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.print(e);
}
}
}
}
You have used a general wait() with the synchronization in the method. Try using an object-synchronised version, such as synchronized(this){ wait(); } then whatever, to prevent cyclic dependencies of multiple threads on the same object, which is very very dangerous for any multithreaded program.
Or, more simply, implement a proper clone() method in your ProducerConsumerData class, and then to the 1st thread pass this object, and to the next pass its clone. Try using p.clone() instead of p in the second thread's constructor.
As answered above, you can make printStringP() 's notify() only get called when flag is true, not always.
This is the classic misconception that trips up almost everyone who tries to use wait and notify. Really they are so old and broken they shouldn't even be taught any more IMHO.
When printStringP calls notify() printStringC is not waiting yet.
class ProduceCosumeData {
// Variable shared between threads should be volatile.
volatile boolean flag;
public synchronized void printStringP(int n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
try {
//for frist time flag is flase so, wait will skip
if (flag) {
System.err.println("Waiting in printStringP");
wait();
} else {
System.err.println("flag now true");
flag = true; //for next time onwards wait() will get call
}
System.out.print("Pay");
System.err.println("printStringP notify");
notify();//after this why my wait() not canceling in inprintStringC()
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.print(e);
}
}
}
public synchronized void printStringC(int n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
try {
System.err.println("Waiting in printStringC");
wait(); // why it is not out of this after notify()
System.out.print("Tm");
System.err.println("printStringC notify");
notify();
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.print(e);
}
}
}
}
class ProducerT extends Thread {
ProduceCosumeData p;
ProducerT(ProduceCosumeData p) {
this.p = p; // i am saving the same obj for both threads
}
public void run() {
p.printStringP(10); //it will print 10 times pay
}
}
class ConsumerT extends Thread {
ProduceCosumeData p;
ConsumerT(ProduceCosumeData p) {
this.p = p; // i am saving the same obj for both threads
}
public void run() {
p.printStringC(10); //it will print 10 times tm
}
}
public void test() {
ProduceCosumeData p = new ProduceCosumeData();
ProducerT pt = new ProducerT(p); // with p obj i am creating thread
ConsumerT ct = new ConsumerT(p); // with same p obj i am creating thread
pt.start();
ct.start(); //i am starting 2 threads
}
prints
flag now true
PayprintStringP notify
Waiting in printStringP
Waiting in printStringC
To fix this don't use wait/notify it is broken for all but the very experienced. The same functionality can be achieved in a stable fashion using Locks and Conditions or almost any other java.util.concurrent class.
In the second iteration of printStringP the attribute flag is true and then the two threads are waiting.
Please find the below code snippet.
package com.java.examples;
public class ProducerConsumer {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ProduceCosumeData p = new ProduceCosumeData();
ProducerT pt = new ProducerT(p); // with p obj i am creating thread
ConsumerT ct = new ConsumerT(p); // with same p obj i am creating thread
pt.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
ct.start(); // i am starting 2 threads
}
}
class ProduceCosumeData {
boolean flag = false;
public synchronized void printStringP(int n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
try {
if (flag) {
notify();
} else
flag = true;
System.out.println("Pay");
if (i <= n - 1) {
wait();
} else {
break;
}
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.print(e);
}
}
notify();
}
public synchronized void printStringC(int n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
try {
if (flag) {
System.out.println("Tm");
if (i <= n - 1) {
notify();
} else {
break;
}
} else
flag = false;
wait();
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.print(e);
}
}
}
}
class ProducerT extends Thread {
ProduceCosumeData p;
ProducerT(ProduceCosumeData p) {
this.p = p; // i am saving the same obj for both threads
}
public void run() {
p.printStringP(10); // it will print 10 times pay
}
}
class ConsumerT extends Thread {
ProduceCosumeData p;
ConsumerT(ProduceCosumeData p) {
this.p = p; // i am saving the same obj for both threads
}
public void run() {
p.printStringC(10); // it will print 10 times tm
}
}
I am trying an example of multi threading in java. There was an example on multithreading Synchronization in Java Complete reference 7th Edition. The example works fine. but when i slightly add a line to create another thread of the same class this does not work. Could some please let me know why this is happening. The example is given below. The below code is a classic exacple of producer and consumer. Where there is a single producer it works fine when i have 2 producers then it will fail. It just puts till 15 and stops.
class Q {
int n;
boolean valueSet = false;
synchronized int get() {
while (!valueSet) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException caught");
}
}
System.out.println("Got: " + n);
valueSet = false;
notify();
return n;
}
synchronized void put(int n) {
while (valueSet) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException caught");
}
}
this.n = n;
valueSet = true;
System.out.println("Put: " + n);
notify();
}
}
class Producer implements Runnable {
Q q;
Producer(Q q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Producer").start();
//new Thread(this, "Producer2").start();
}
public void run() {
int i = 0;
while (true) {
q.put(i++);
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
Q q;
Consumer(Q q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Consumer").start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
q.get();
}
}
}
public class PCFixed {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Q q = new Q();
Producer P1 = new Producer(q);
new Consumer(q);
Producer P2 = new Producer(q);
System.out.println("Press Control-C to stop.");
}
}
Q is written to only accept one value at a time. You need to change put to be a boolean method - it returns true if valueset is true and then proceeds as normal, and returns false if valueset is false and returns without doing anything. Then the methods calling put will need to keep retrying until they get a true response. This way multiple consumers can use the same Q object without interfering with each other.
A better solution if you're using multiple producers is to use a ConcurrentLinkedQueue, which is a thread-safe queue. The producers will offer integers to the queue, and the consumers will poll the queue for integers. Multiple producers can simultaneously offer integers without interfering with each other, and multiple consumers can simultaneously poll integers without interfering with each other.
The example of concurrency you provide uses a single boolean flag to check whether there is a signal or not.
So this is more of a Semaphore arrangement than a producer consumer arrangement. It is too simplistic to deal with an arbitrary number of Threads.
If you really want to use producer consumer you are going to need a queue that holds more than one item.
static final AtomicBoolean run = new AtomicBoolean(true);
static class Producer implements Runnable {
final BlockingQueue<String> blockingQueue;
public Producer(BlockingQueue<String> blockingQueue) {
this.blockingQueue = blockingQueue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (run.get()) {
blockingQueue.add("Value from " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
//doesn't matter.
}
}
}
}
static class Consumer implements Runnable {
final BlockingQueue<String> blockingQueue;
public Consumer(BlockingQueue<String> blockingQueue) {
this.blockingQueue = blockingQueue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (run.get()) {
final String item;
try {
item = blockingQueue.take();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
}
System.out.println(item);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final LinkedBlockingQueue<String> lbq = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
executorService.submit(new Consumer(lbq));
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
executorService.submit(new Producer(lbq));
}
Thread.sleep(10000);
run.set(false);
executorService.shutdownNow();
}
This simple example uses a LinkedBlockingQueue to post events to and read events from.
The Producer puts Strings into the queue with it's own Thread name (they do this every 100ms). The Consumer takes from the queue and prints the String.
The queue is a BlockingQueue so the take method will block if the queue is empty.
You can easily change the number of Producers and Consumers by changing the loops that add items to the ExecutorService. Experiment, see how it works.
The AtomicBoolean flag allows the program to shutdown all the child processes spawned.
Replace each occurrence of notify with notifyAll.