Is it possible in java to create a thread that will always work in the background? The problem is that the application instance sometimes crashes with an OutOfMemoryException. Therefore, several instances are launched in parallel. Each instance does some work: it saves something to the database at the request of the user. And the stream, which should work constantly, will look into the database and somehow process the information from it.
Most likely, the sheduler will not work, since the thread must be running constantly and wait for a signal to start working.
First of all, I suggest you investigate and resolve the OutOfMemoryException because it better to avoid these cases. You can instanziate a thread that wait for a request, execute a request and then return to wait for another request. The implementation is like this for thread:
/** Squares integers. */
public class Squarer {
private final BlockingQueue<Integer> in;
private final BlockingQueue<SquareResult> out;
public Squarer(BlockingQueue<Integer> requests,
BlockingQueue<SquareResult> replies) {
this.in = requests;
this.out = replies;
}
public void start() {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
// block until a request arrives
int x = in.take();
// compute the answer and send it back
int y = x * x;
out.put(new SquareResult(x, y));
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}).start();
}
}
And for the caller method:
public static void main(String[] args) {
BlockingQueue<Integer> requests = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
BlockingQueue<SquareResult> replies = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
Squarer squarer = new Squarer(requests, replies);
squarer.start();
try {
// make a request
requests.put(42);
// ... maybe do something concurrently ...
// read the reply
System.out.println(replies.take());
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
}
To more information, you can start to read the post that I found here to provide you the example.
You basically need an infinitely running thread with some control.
I found this answer to be the simplest and it does what you need.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/2854890/11226302
Related
I have the following method, that called every time I click over a button, this results to start a new thread again and again when the button is pressed, that results to multiple initialisation of thread, however I want only one thread should get executed, how can I achieve this.
private void scheduleMessages() {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//Some operations
}
}).start();
}
Note: this is a small method and I don't want to create a separate class, just to make it singleton, so a solution without singleton pattern will be appreciated.
if you cannot make instance of this to check isActive() you should make a semaphore variable - a boolean, that you set to true when you start thread and set to false when you are done.
private void scheduleMessages() {
if (!taskRunning){
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
taskRunning = true;
//Some operations
taskRunning = false;
}
}).start();
}
}
Have that thread be a background thread - maybe initialize it when the button is pressed the first time.
Have that thread listen to a queue - and act upon messages in that queue.
Whenever the button is pressed again, put a new message into the queue.
If your need to execute every requests but on a specific number of threads, you can use a thread pool and let the executor manage the queue .
private ExecutorService services;
private final static int POOL_SIZE = 1;
public MessagesService(){
services = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(POOL_SIZE);
}
public void scheduleMessages(Runnable r){
services.submit(r);
}
If you call addCall x times, x thread will be executed at the end but will never use more than the number of thread available in the pool. Here, 1 thread.
For a system that only accept one request, you can use the same approch but check the Future returned by a single thread executor. That way, you can check the status of the service.
private ExecutorService services;
private Future<?> lastCall;
public MessagesService() {
services = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
lastCall = null;
}
public synchronized void scheduleMessages(Runnable r) {
if(!isScheduled()){
lastCall = services.submit(r);
}
}
public boolean isScheduled(){
return lastCall != null && !lastCall.isDone();
}
That way, the Runnable doesn't need to update a flag, which give a reusable solution.
Here is a sample of the Runnable to test these codes :
new Runnable() {
System.out.println("Running");
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
I have a Thread which runs always with while(true) loop and basically all it does is to add Runnable objects to an executor.
OrderExecutionThread:
public class OrderExecutionThread extends Thread implements Runnable {
final private static int ORDER_EXEC_THREADS_NUMBER = 10;
private boolean running = true;
private boolean flag = true;
private List<Order> firstSellsList = new ArrayList<>();
private List<Order> secondSellsList = new ArrayList<>();
private ManagedDataSource managedDataSource;
private ExecutorService executorService;
public OrderExecutionThread(ManagedDataSource managedDataSource) {
this.managedDataSource = managedDataSource;
this.executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(ORDER_EXEC_THREADS_NUMBER);
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
if (!firstSellsList.isEmpty() && !firstBuysList.isEmpty()) {
initAndRunExecution(firstBuysList.get(0), firstSellsList.get(0));
}
}
private void initAndRunExecution(Order buy, Order sell) {
executorService.submit(new OrderExecution(buy, sell, managedDataSource));
}
}
I'm running this thread By doing this in my main class:
new Thread(orderExecutionThread).start();
The executor suppose to execute the OrderExecution runnable object which does this:
#Override
public void run() {
try {
connection = managedDataSource.getConnection();
makeExecution(sell, buy);
} catch (SQLException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
try {
if (!connection.isClosed())
connection.close();
} catch (SQLException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
I know for sure that both lists are not empty and the initAndRunExecution is being called, however the order execution run method is not being called....
I know for sure that both lists are not empty and the initAndRunExecution is being called, however the order execution run method is not being called....
I suspect that this is a problem because your firstSellsList and firstBuysList are not synchronized collections. I suspect that other threads are adding to those lists but your OrderExecutionThread never sees the memory updates so just spins forever seeing empty lists. Whenever you share data between threads you need to worry about how the updates will be published and how the thread cache memory will be updated.
As #Fildor mentions in the comments, one solution would be to use a BlockingQueues instead of your Lists. The BlockQueue (for example LinkedBlockingQueue) is a synchronized class so this takes care of the memory sharing. An alternative benefit is that you don't have to do a spin-loop to watch for entries.
For example, your OrderExecutionThread might do something like:
private final BlockingQueue<Order> firstBuys = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
private final BlockingQueue<Order> firstSells = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// wait until we get a buy
Order buy = firstBuys.take();
// wait until we get a sell
Order sell = firstSells.take();
initAndRunExecution(buy, sell);
}
This will wait until the lists get entries before running the orders.
This is a general Java question and not an Android one first off!
I'd like to know how to run code on the main thread, from the context of a secondary thread. For example:
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
//work out pi to 1,000 DP (takes a while!)
//print the result on the main thread
}
}).start();
That sort of thing - I realise my example is a little poor since in Java you don't need to be in the main thread to print something out, and that Swing has an event queue also - but the generic situation where you might need to run say a Runnable on the main thread while in the context of a background thread.
EDIT: For comparison - here's how I'd do it in Objective-C:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0UL), ^{
//do background thread stuff
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
//update UI
});
});
Thanks in advance!
There is no universal way to just send some code to another running thread and say "Hey, you, do this." You would need to put the main thread into a state where it has a mechanism for receiving work and is waiting for work to do.
Here's a simple example of setting up the main thread to wait to receive work from other threads and run it as it arrives. Obviously you would want to add a way to actually end the program and so forth...!
public static final BlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>();
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
final int result;
result = 2+3;
queue.add(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(result);
}
});
}
}).start();
while(true) {
queue.take().run();
}
}
In case you are on Android, using a Handler should do the job?
new Handler(Looper.getMainLooper()).post(new Runnable () {
#Override
public void run () {
...
}
});
An old discussion, but if it is a matter of sending request to the main thread (an not the opposite direction) you can also do it with futures. The basic aim is to execute something in background and, when it is finished, to get the result:
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
// create the task to execute
System.out.println("Main: Run thread");
FutureTask<Integer> task = new FutureTask<Integer>(
new Callable<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer call() throws Exception {
// indicate the beginning of the thread
System.out.println("Thread: Start");
// decide a timeout between 1 and 5s
int timeout = 1000 + new Random().nextInt(4000);
// wait the timeout
Thread.sleep(timeout);
// indicate the end of the thread
System.out.println("Thread: Stop after " + timeout + "ms");
// return the result of the background execution
return timeout;
}
});
new Thread(task).start();
// here the thread is running in background
// during this time we do something else
System.out.println("Main: Start to work on other things...");
Thread.sleep(2000);
System.out.println("Main: I have done plenty of stuff, but now I need the result of my function!");
// wait for the thread to finish if necessary and retrieve the result.
Integer result = task.get();
// now we can go ahead and use the result
System.out.println("Main: Thread has returned " + result);
// you can also check task.isDone() before to call task.get() to know
// if it is finished and do somethings else if it is not the case.
}
If your intention is to do several stuff in background and retrieve the results, you can set some queues as said above or you can split the process in several futures (starting all at once or starting a new one when needed, even from another future). If you store each task in a map or a list, initialized in the main thread, you can check the futures that you want at anytime and get their results when they are done.
You may want to use the 'even dispatching thread' where most event driven things happen. If you are using swing then:
SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
Your code here.
}
});
Or create a class that implements Runnable and pass it into invokeLater().
If you're using JavaFX, which I highly recommend, then you can use
Platform.runLater(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
alert(text);
}
});
from within your non-UI thread, and the runnable will executed from the UI thread on return from your thread.
A little late to the party but I think that my approach is a little bit different.
Modifying Affe's solution a little bit
public static final BlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread myThread = new Thread(
() -> {
String name = Thread.currentThread().getName();
System.out.println("initial current thread " + name);
queue.add(() -> System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()));
});
myThread.setName("background thread");
myThread.start();
try {
myThread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
while (!queue.isEmpty()) {
try {
queue.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
output
initial current thread background thread
main
I have a ThreadManager with two Threads. One for gui-relevant requests and one for measurement-relevant requests. The are both running and checking their queue of requests, if there is any, they are processing the request. One can add requests at any time, using the static ThreadManager.addGuiRequest(eGuiRequest) and ThreadManager.addMeasRequest(eMeasRequest) methods. Now both of those need to be initialized which is done by adding a INIT request to the corresponding queue. But the initialization of the measurement is depending on the fact that the gui is already initialized. I tried to solve this using wait()/notify(), but I can not get it working.
Here is a SSCCE. At startup, both queues have a INIT request added and are then started. The measurement initialization detects that the gui is not yet initialized and perfomrs a wait(). The gui initializes (simulated by sleeping for 5s). This all works fine.
After the gui initialized, it tries to wake up the measurement thread, but the measurement thread does not wake up... I based my wait()/notify() code on this article. What is going wrong here?
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.NoSuchElementException;
public class ThreadManager {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new ThreadManager();
ThreadManager.addMeasRequest(eMeasRequest.OTHER_STUFF);
}
public enum eGuiRequest { INIT, OTHER_STUFF; }
public enum eMeasRequest { INIT, OTHER_STUFF; }
private static LinkedList<eGuiRequest> guiQueue = new LinkedList<eGuiRequest>();
private static LinkedList<eMeasRequest> measQueue = new LinkedList<eMeasRequest>();
private static Thread guiThread, measThread;
protected boolean initialized = false;
public ThreadManager() {
final int waitMs = 200;
guiThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
if (guiQueue.isEmpty()) sleepMs(waitMs);
else {
eGuiRequest req = guiQueue.getFirst();
processGuiRequest(req);
guiQueue.removeFirst();
}
} catch (NoSuchElementException e) {}
}
}
private void processGuiRequest(eGuiRequest req) {
System.out.println("T: " + "Processing Gui request: " + req);
switch (req) {
case INIT:
// do some initializiation here - replaced by a wait:
sleepMs(5000);
System.out.println("I: " + "guiThread finished, waking up measThread");
synchronized (measThread) {
initialized = true;
measThread.notify();
}
break;
case OTHER_STUFF:
// do other stuff
break;
}
}
});
measThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
if (measQueue.isEmpty()) sleepMs(waitMs);
else {
eMeasRequest req = measQueue.getFirst();
processMeasurementRequest(req);
measQueue.removeFirst();
}
} catch (NoSuchElementException e) {}
}
}
private void processMeasurementRequest(eMeasRequest req) {
if (req == eMeasRequest.INIT) { // if init, wait until GUI is initialized
synchronized (this) {
while (!initialized) {
System.out.println("I: " + "measThread waits for guiThread to finish initializiation");
try {
wait();
} catch (Exception e) {}
System.out.println("I: " + "measThread awakes");
}
}
}
System.out.println("T: " + "Processing Measurement request: " + req);
// process request here:
sleepMs(5000);
}
});
addGuiRequest(eGuiRequest.INIT);
addMeasRequest(eMeasRequest.INIT);
guiThread.start();
measThread.start();
}
public static void sleepMs(int ms) {
try {
Thread.sleep(ms);
} catch (InterruptedException ee) {}
}
public static void addGuiRequest(eGuiRequest req) {
guiQueue.add(req);
}
public static void addMeasRequest(eMeasRequest req) {
measQueue.add(req);
}
}
The GUI thread calls notify() on measThread (of type Thread), and the processMeasurementRequest() method calls wait() on this, which is the Runnable instance used by measThread.
I would advise using a specific object, shared by both threads to wait and notify:
private static final Object GUI_INITIALIZATION_MONITOR = new Object();
Also, instead of using a LinkedList and sleeping an aritrary time between requests, I would use a BlockingQueue: this would allow the consuming thread to handle a request as soon as there is one, and would avoid unnecessary wakeups from the sleeping state.
Also, instead of the low-level wait/notify, you could use a CountDownLatch initialized to 1. The GUI thread would countDown() the latch when it's initialized, and the mesurement thread would await() the latch until the GUI thread has called countDown(). This would delegate complex synchronization and notification stuff to a more high-level, well-tested object.
The main problem is that you call notify() on measThread, but wait() is called on an anonymous class. The easiest way to fix this is to create a special object for synchronization. For example, you create a field:
private static final Object LOCK = new Object();
Then you write synchronized blocks using this object and call its methods like this:
synchronized (LOCK) {
while (!initialized) LOCK.wait();
}
Also I have to say that this piece of code doesn't use any synchronization at all for the fields accessed from different threads, which means that it can break at any time. Both queues are accessed outside the threads created by you, this means that you should either access them with a lock held all the time, or you can make them thread safe by using a built-in synchronized list:
quiQueue = Collections.synchronizedList(new LinkedList<eGuiRequest>());
initialized is accessed from synchronized blocks, but right now they synchronize on different locks (I have described this problem at the start of my answer). If you fix this problem, initialized will also be working as it should.
Just do not sent init request to measurment at startup. Sent it from processGuiRequest() after execution of init gui request. Then no wait/notify stuff is needed.
I have few asynchronous tasks running and I need to wait until at least one of them is finished (in the future probably I'll need to wait util M out of N tasks are finished).
Currently they are presented as Future, so I need something like
/**
* Blocks current thread until one of specified futures is done and returns it.
*/
public static <T> Future<T> waitForAny(Collection<Future<T>> futures)
throws AllFuturesFailedException
Is there anything like this? Or anything similar, not necessary for Future. Currently I loop through collection of futures, check if one is finished, then sleep for some time and check again. This looks like not the best solution, because if I sleep for long period then unwanted delay is added, if I sleep for short period then it can affect performance.
I could try using
new CountDownLatch(1)
and decrease countdown when task is complete and do
countdown.await()
, but I found it possible only if I control Future creation. It is possible, but requires system redesign, because currently logic of tasks creation (sending Callable to ExecutorService) is separated from decision to wait for which Future. I could also override
<T> RunnableFuture<T> AbstractExecutorService.newTaskFor(Callable<T> callable)
and create custom implementation of RunnableFuture with ability to attach listener to be notified when task is finished, then attach such listener to needed tasks and use CountDownLatch, but that means I have to override newTaskFor for every ExecutorService I use - and potentially there will be implementation which do not extend AbstractExecutorService. I could also try wrapping given ExecutorService for same purpose, but then I have to decorate all methods producing Futures.
All these solutions may work but seem very unnatural. It looks like I'm missing something simple, like
WaitHandle.WaitAny(WaitHandle[] waitHandles)
in c#. Are there any well known solutions for such kind of problem?
UPDATE:
Originally I did not have access to Future creation at all, so there were no elegant solution. After redesigning system I got access to Future creation and was able to add countDownLatch.countdown() to execution process, then I can countDownLatch.await() and everything works fine.
Thanks for other answers, I did not know about ExecutorCompletionService and it indeed can be helpful in similar tasks, but in this particular case it could not be used because some Futures are created without any executor - actual task is sent to another server via network, completes remotely and completion notification is received.
simple, check out ExecutorCompletionService.
ExecutorService.invokeAny
Why not just create a results queue and wait on the queue? Or more simply, use a CompletionService since that's what it is: an ExecutorService + result queue.
This is actually pretty easy with wait() and notifyAll().
First, define a lock object. (You can use any class for this, but I like to be explicit):
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Lock {}
Next, define your worker thread. He must notify that lock object when he's finished with his processing. Note that the notify must be in a synchronized block locking on the lock object.
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Worker extends Thread {
private Lock lock_;
private long timeToSleep_;
private String name_;
public Worker(Lock lock, String name, long timeToSleep) {
lock_ = lock;
timeToSleep_ = timeToSleep;
name_ = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// do real work -- using a sleep here to simulate work
try {
sleep(timeToSleep_);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
interrupt();
}
System.out.println(name_ + " is done... notifying");
// notify whoever is waiting, in this case, the client
synchronized (lock_) {
lock_.notify();
}
}
}
Finally, you can write your client:
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Client {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Lock lock = new Lock();
Worker worker1 = new Worker(lock, "worker1", 15000);
Worker worker2 = new Worker(lock, "worker2", 10000);
Worker worker3 = new Worker(lock, "worker3", 5000);
Worker worker4 = new Worker(lock, "worker4", 20000);
boolean started = false;
int numNotifies = 0;
while (true) {
synchronized (lock) {
try {
if (!started) {
// need to do the start here so we grab the lock, just
// in case one of the threads is fast -- if we had done the
// starts outside the synchronized block, a fast thread could
// get to its notification *before* the client is waiting for it
worker1.start();
worker2.start();
worker3.start();
worker4.start();
started = true;
}
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
numNotifies++;
if (numNotifies == 4) {
break;
}
System.out.println("Notified!");
}
}
System.out.println("Everyone has notified me... I'm done");
}
}
As far as I know, Java has no analogous structure to the WaitHandle.WaitAny method.
It seems to me that this could be achieved through a "WaitableFuture" decorator:
public WaitableFuture<T>
extends Future<T>
{
private CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
WaitableFuture(CountDownLatch countDownLatch)
{
super();
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
void doTask()
{
super.doTask();
this.countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}
Though this would only work if it can be inserted before the execution code, since otherwise the execution code would not have the new doTask() method. But I really see no way of doing this without polling if you cannot somehow gain control of the Future object before execution.
Or if the future always runs in its own thread, and you can somehow get that thread. Then you could spawn a new thread to join each other thread, then handle the waiting mechanism after the join returns... This would be really ugly and would induce a lot of overhead though. And if some Future objects don't finish, you could have a lot of blocked threads depending on dead threads. If you're not careful, this could leak memory and system resources.
/**
* Extremely ugly way of implementing WaitHandle.WaitAny for Thread.Join().
*/
public static joinAny(Collection<Thread> threads, int numberToWaitFor)
{
CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(numberToWaitFor);
foreach(Thread thread in threads)
{
(new Thread(new JoinThreadHelper(thread, countDownLatch))).start();
}
countDownLatch.await();
}
class JoinThreadHelper
implements Runnable
{
Thread thread;
CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
JoinThreadHelper(Thread thread, CountDownLatch countDownLatch)
{
this.thread = thread;
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
void run()
{
this.thread.join();
this.countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}
If you can use CompletableFutures instead then there is CompletableFuture.anyOf that does what you want, just call join on the result:
CompletableFuture.anyOf(futures).join()
You can use CompletableFutures with executors by calling the CompletableFuture.supplyAsync or runAsync methods.
Since you don't care which one finishes, why not just have a single WaitHandle for all threads and wait on that? Whichever one finishes first can set the handle.
See this option:
public class WaitForAnyRedux {
private static final int POOL_SIZE = 10;
public static <T> T waitForAny(Collection<T> collection) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
List<Callable<T>> callables = new ArrayList<Callable<T>>();
for (final T t : collection) {
Callable<T> callable = Executors.callable(new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (t) {
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}, t);
callables.add(callable);
}
BlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(POOL_SIZE);
ExecutorService executorService = new ThreadPoolExecutor(POOL_SIZE, POOL_SIZE, 0, TimeUnit.SECONDS, queue);
return executorService.invokeAny(callables);
}
static public void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
final List<Integer> integers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < POOL_SIZE; i++) {
integers.add(i);
}
(new Thread() {
public void run() {
Integer notified = null;
try {
notified = waitForAny(integers);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("notified=" + notified);
}
}).start();
synchronized (integers) {
integers.wait(3000);
}
Integer randomInt = integers.get((new Random()).nextInt(POOL_SIZE));
System.out.println("Waking up " + randomInt);
synchronized (randomInt) {
randomInt.notify();
}
}
}