I'm learning about ExecutorService in a simple Spring Boot project. And I know that ExecutorService uses submit method to submit tasks and it will uses different threads for every task. And I don't understand where exactly are the new threads started. I know that a thread is started using method start. Can somebody explain me where is invoked the start method?
For example, this is my code:
try {
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
Future<Accounts> accountFuture =
executorService.submit(
() -> accountsRepository.findByCustomerId(customer.getCustomerId()));
Future<List<Loans>> loansFuture =
executorService.submit(
() -> loansFeignClient.getLoansDetails(correlationId, customer));
Future<List<Cards>> cardsFuture =
executorService.submit(
() -> cardsFeignClient.getCardDetails(correlationId, customer));
executorService.shutdown();
Accounts account;
try {
executorService.awaitTermination(3, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
account = accountFuture.get();
} catch (ExecutionException | InterruptedException ex) {
logger.warn("Exception for accountFuture.get() = {}", ex);
return ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR).build();
}
List<Loans> loansList = new ArrayList<>();
List<Cards> cardsList = new ArrayList<>();
try {
loansList.addAll(loansFuture.get());
} catch (ExecutionException | InterruptedException ex) {
logger.warn(ex.toString());
logger.warn("The call to GET loans details failed! Returning empty contactDetails body!");
}
try {
cardsList.addAll(cardsFuture.get());
} catch (ExecutionException | InterruptedException ex) {
logger.warn(ex.toString());
logger.warn("The call to GET cards details failed! Returning empty contactDetails body!");
}
...
Is the new thread started when the submit method is invoked or when the get method is invoked? And when is invoked the start method?
Thank you! Any feedback will be appreciated!
ExecutorService is another layer on top of Threads.
You dont have to manage the threads yourself, the ExecutorService is doing this for you.
Future<Accounts> accountFuture = executorService.submit(() -> accountsRepository.findByCustomerId(customer.getCustomerId()));
this is already starting a new thread. You get a future returned to tell you the state of the computation (if its finished, the result etc).
Under the hood the ExecutorService is doing the new Thread().start() things automatically.
I'm trying to implement a Spring boot scheduler to test Callable and ExecutorService interfaces.
In my app I have:
#Bean("fixedThreadPool")
public ExecutorService fixedThreadPool() {
return Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
}
Then:
**#Scheduled(fixedRate = 60000)**
public void removeUserIds(Set<String> userIds) {
UriComponentsBuilder builder = UriComponentsBuilder.fromUriString("http://localhost:8080/remove");
final List<Callable<String>> callables = new ArrayList<>();
userIds.forEach(userId -> {
final List<Callable<String>> callables = new ArrayList<>();
userIds.forEach(userId -> {
final Callable<String> task = () -> {
try{
log.info("Calling service to remove user id node : "+userId);
callServiceToRemoveNode(url,userId);
} catch(ServiceException e ){
log.error("Error while calling service: "+e.getCause());
**executor.shutdownNow();**
}
return "";
}; //Call to remote service using RestTemplate
callables.add(task);
});
try {
final List<Future<String>> futureList =
executor.invokeAll(callables);
futureList.forEach(future -> {
try {
log.info(future.get());
} catch (final Exception e) {
log.error("Error : "+ e.getMessage());
}
});
} catch (final Exception e) {
log.error("Error Error Error : "+ e.getMessage());
} finally {
executor.shutdown();
}
}
When I am calling removeUserIds() method with 100 userIds, It is working fine in happy flow, but if service is unavailable or down, error is getting printed 100th time and to avoid this I have used executor.shutdownNow(); so that further call will not happen to service for other user ids. But scheduler is not working and not executing after time interval if executor.shutdownNow(); statement executes. Could you please help me here to find out solution to avoid scheduler shutdown so even after executor.shutdownNow(); statement executes in before run of scheduler, it should run? or suggest feasible solution here?
I execute a few callables through ThreadPoolExecutor. If thread list contains only 1 callable then I directly call call method of my CallableService. If list contains more than 1 callables then I execute all those threads in parallel via thread pool executor.
How can I achieve this with Java 8 CompletableFuture? And if future.get() is enhanced to avoid blocking, that will be a plus.
private static ThreadPoolExecutor myThreadPoolExecutor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(0, 100, 5L, TimeUnit.SECONDS, new SynchronousQueue<>());
public static void execute(List<Callable<Boolean>> threadList) throws Exception {
List<Future<Boolean>> futureList = null;
CallableService singleService = (CallableService) threadList.get(0);
if (1 == threadList.size()) {
singleService.call();
}
else {
try {
futureList = myThreadPoolExecutor.invokeAll(threadList);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
if (null != futureList) {
for (Future<Boolean> future : futureList) {
try {
future.get();
}
catch (Exception e) {
//do some calculations here and then throw exception
throw new Exception(e.getMessage(), e);
}
}
}
}
There is no need for CompletableFuture, as the way you use the ExecutorService is sufficient, though, there are some aspects of the code flow which could be improved. You fetch the first element, even when not needed, and you cast it to CallableService for no reason, as you can call the method via the Callable interface already. In the other branch you are catching InterruptedException and proceeding, so the caller would never know that not all jobs have been executed. And in a straight-forward code flow, you don't need to check the list for null:
public static void execute(List<Callable<Boolean>> threadList) throws Exception {
if(1 == threadList.size()) {
Callable<Boolean> singleService = threadList.get(0);
singleService.call();
}
else {
List<Future<Boolean>> futureList = myThreadPoolExecutor.invokeAll(threadList);
for(Future<Boolean> future : futureList) {
try {
future.get();
}
catch(Exception e) {
//do some calculations here and then throw exception
throw new Exception(e.getMessage(), e);
}
}
}
}
You could shorten it further to
public static void execute(List<Callable<Boolean>> threadList) throws Exception {
if(1 == threadList.size()) {
threadList.get(0).call();
}
else {
for(Future<Boolean> future : myThreadPoolExecutor.invokeAll(threadList)) {
try {
future.get();
}
catch(Exception e) {
//do some calculations here and then throw exception
throw new Exception(e.getMessage(), e);
}
}
}
}
But that's a matter of preferred coding style. But note that it caught my eye that in the single element case, you're not performing the same exception handling.
To use CompletableFuture, we need an adapter method, as the convenience method supplyAsync requires a Supplier instead of a Callable. Using a modified variant of this answer, we get
public static void execute(List<Callable<Boolean>> threadList) throws Exception {
if(1 == threadList.size()) {
threadList.get(0).call();
}
else {
CompletableFuture<?> all = CompletableFuture.allOf(
threadList.stream()
.map(c -> callAsync(c, myThreadPoolExecutor))
.toArray(CompletableFuture<?>[]::new));
try {
all.get();
}
catch(Exception e) {
//do some calculations here and then throw exception
throw new Exception(e.getMessage(), e);
}
}
}
public static <R> CompletableFuture<R> callAsync(Callable<R> callable, Executor e) {
CompletableFuture<R> cf = new CompletableFuture<>();
CompletableFuture.runAsync(() -> {
try { cf.complete(callable.call()); }
catch(Throwable ex) { cf.completeExceptionally(ex); }
}, e);
return cf;
}
So we have no invokeAll which takes care of submitting all jobs. We have to do this manually, either with a loop or a stream operation. On the other hand, we get a single future via allOf representing the completion status, exceptionally if at least one job failed.
Unlike invokeAll, which waits for the completion, allOf only returns the future so it is the all.get() call which waits for the completion. We could do other things before it or even use this property to always perform the first job in the caller thread:
public static void execute(List<Callable<Boolean>> threadList) throws Exception {
CompletableFuture<?> tail = CompletableFuture.allOf(
threadList.stream().skip(1)
.map(c -> callAsync(c, myThreadPoolExecutor))
.toArray(CompletableFuture<?>[]::new)),
head = callAsync(threadList.get(0), Runnable::run);
try {
head.get();
tail.get();
}
catch(Exception e) {
//do some calculations here and then throw exception
throw new Exception(e.getMessage(), e);
}
}
This will always call the first callable in the current thread, as Runnable::run used as Executor will perform the action immediately in the calling thread. But it's treated uniformly in all other aspects, especially the exception handling. When there is only one job, allOf invoke with an empty array will do nothing and return an already completed future, which will have the desired effect.
Future.isDone() tells us if the executor has finished processing the task. If the task is completed, it will return true otherwise, it returns false.
for (Future<Boolean> future : futureList) {
while(!future.isDone())
{
doSOmethingElse();
Thread.sleep(300);//Optional
}
try {
future.get();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
//do some calculations here and then throw exception
throw new Exception(e.getMessage(), e);
}
}
But we don't have to worry about that since we get to the point where get() is called after making sure that the task is finished.
I execute a few callables through ThreadPoolExecutor. If thread list contains only 1 callable then I directly call call method of my CallableService. If list contains more than 1 callables then I execute all those threads in parallel via thread pool executor.
I guess you have already implemented this part. (You might run into memory usage issues if your jobs are heavy and you have 100 threads running as configured. But that is a different problem.)
And if future.get() is enhanced to avoid blocking, that will be a plus.
For this, you may take this approach:
Create another ExecutorService whose job will be just to run the Future.get() calls.
Submit your Future.get() to that service as shown below.
Shut it down and await termination.
if (null != futureList) {
ExecutorService waitSvc = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (Future<Boolean> future : futureList) {
try {
waitSvc.submit( () -> future.get() );
}
catch (Exception e) {
//do some calculations here and then throw exception
throw new Exception(e.getMessage(), e);
}
}
waitSvc.shutdown(); //This may take some time. You may want to call awaitTermination() after this.
}
However, I feel that you should redesign the overall approach of using so many threads, unless this is only a for-learning application.
I am building a library that needs to some bluetooth operations on Android. I want to return a Future instance, so whoever is using my library can call .get() on the future returned and can handle ExecutionException, TimeoutException and InterruptedException themselves. However, I want to detect a timeout myself because I need to some cleanup logic like disconnecting from the device and so on. How can I achieve this?
You could implement a wrapper class around Future which delegates to a different one (the one returned by wherever you're getting your Future at the moment). Something like:
final class DelegatingFuture<T> implements Future<T> {
private final Future<T> delegate;
DelegatingFuture(final Future<T> delegate) {
this.delegate = Objects.requireNonNull(delegate);
}
// All other methods simply delegate to 'delegate'
#Override
public T get()
throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
try {
return this.delegate.get();
} catch (final Exception ex) {
// Handle cleanup...
throw ex;
}
}
// Something similar for get(long timeout, TimeUnit unit)
}
And then simply return new DelegatingFuture<>(currentFuture); wherever your handing these out.
The timeout is relevant to the caller of the get method with timeout and only to that caller. A timeout is nowhere meant to imply a cancellation. E.g., the following code is a legitimate usage of the Future API:
ExecutorService es = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Future<String> f = es.submit(() -> {
Thread.sleep(3000);
return "hello";
});
for(;;) try {
String s = f.get(500, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
System.out.println("got "+s);
break;
}
catch(TimeoutException ex) {
// perhaps, do some other work
System.out.println("will wait something more");
}
catch (ExecutionException ex) {
System.out.println("failed with "+ex);
break;
}
es.shutdown();
Tying the cleanup to the methods actually intended to query the result, is not a useful approach. The timeout provided by the caller(s) of that method do not relate to the actual operation. There’s not even a guaranty that the result will be queried before the operations ends or that it gets queried at all.
The cleanup should happen when either, the operation finished or when the future gets cancelled explicitly. If the caller intends a cancellation after a timeout, the caller only needs to invoke cancel after catching a TimeoutException.
One approach, often pointed to, is to use a CompletionService, e.g.
static final ExecutorService MY__EXECUTOR = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
static final CompletionService<String> COMPLETION_SERVICE
= new ExecutorCompletionService<>(MY__EXECUTOR);
static final Future<?> CLEANER = MY__EXECUTOR.submit(() -> {
for(;;) try {
Future<String> completed = COMPLETION_SERVICE.take();
System.out.println("cleanup "+completed);
} catch(InterruptedException ex) {
if(MY__EXECUTOR.isShutdown()) break;
}
});
public static Future<String> doSomeWork() {
return COMPLETION_SERVICE.submit(() -> {
Thread.sleep(3000);
return "hello";
});
}
You are in control over when to poll the completed futures, like in another background thread, as shown in the example, or right before commencing new jobs.
You can test it like
Future<String> f = doSomeWork();
try {
String s = f.get(500, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
System.out.println("got "+s);
}
catch(TimeoutException ex) {
System.out.println("no result after 500ms");
}
catch (ExecutionException ex) {
System.out.println("failed with "+ex);
}
if(f.cancel(true)) System.out.println("canceled");
f = doSomeWork();
// never calling get() at all
But honestly, I never understood why such complicated things are actually necessary. If you want a cleanup at the right time, you can use
static final ExecutorService MY__EXECUTOR = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
public static Future<String> doSomeWork() {
Callable<String> actualJob = () -> {
Thread.sleep(3000);
return "hello";
};
FutureTask<String> ft = new FutureTask<>(actualJob) {
#Override
protected void done() {
System.out.println("cleanup "+this);
}
};
MY__EXECUTOR.execute(ft);
return ft;
}
to achieve the same.
Or even simpler
static final ExecutorService MY__EXECUTOR = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
public static Future<String> doSomeWork() {
Callable<String> actualJob = () -> {
Thread.sleep(3000);
return "hello";
};
return MY__EXECUTOR.submit(() -> {
try {
return actualJob.call();
}
finally {
// perform cleanup
System.out.println("cleanup");
}
});
}
In either case, the cleanup will be performed whether the job was completed successfully, failed, or got canceled. If cancel(true) was used and the actual job supports interruption, the cleanup also will be performed immediately after.
Is it possible to force Java to throw an Exception after some block of code runs longer than acceptable?
Here's the simplest way that I know of to do this:
final Runnable stuffToDo = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
/* Do stuff here. */
}
};
final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final Future future = executor.submit(stuffToDo);
executor.shutdown(); // This does not cancel the already-scheduled task.
try {
future.get(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
}
catch (InterruptedException ie) {
/* Handle the interruption. Or ignore it. */
}
catch (ExecutionException ee) {
/* Handle the error. Or ignore it. */
}
catch (TimeoutException te) {
/* Handle the timeout. Or ignore it. */
}
if (!executor.isTerminated())
executor.shutdownNow(); // If you want to stop the code that hasn't finished.
Alternatively, you can create a TimeLimitedCodeBlock class to wrap this functionality, and then you can use it wherever you need it as follows:
new TimeLimitedCodeBlock(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES) { #Override public void codeBlock() {
// Do stuff here.
}}.run();
I compiled some of the other answers into a single utility method:
public class TimeLimitedCodeBlock {
public static void runWithTimeout(final Runnable runnable, long timeout, TimeUnit timeUnit) throws Exception {
runWithTimeout(new Callable<Object>() {
#Override
public Object call() throws Exception {
runnable.run();
return null;
}
}, timeout, timeUnit);
}
public static <T> T runWithTimeout(Callable<T> callable, long timeout, TimeUnit timeUnit) throws Exception {
final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final Future<T> future = executor.submit(callable);
executor.shutdown(); // This does not cancel the already-scheduled task.
try {
return future.get(timeout, timeUnit);
}
catch (TimeoutException e) {
//remove this if you do not want to cancel the job in progress
//or set the argument to 'false' if you do not want to interrupt the thread
future.cancel(true);
throw e;
}
catch (ExecutionException e) {
//unwrap the root cause
Throwable t = e.getCause();
if (t instanceof Error) {
throw (Error) t;
} else if (t instanceof Exception) {
throw (Exception) t;
} else {
throw new IllegalStateException(t);
}
}
}
}
Sample code making use of this utility method:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
log(startTime, "calling runWithTimeout!");
try {
TimeLimitedCodeBlock.runWithTimeout(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
log(startTime, "starting sleep!");
Thread.sleep(10000);
log(startTime, "woke up!");
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
log(startTime, "was interrupted!");
}
}
}, 5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
catch (TimeoutException e) {
log(startTime, "got timeout!");
}
log(startTime, "end of main method!");
}
private static void log(long startTime, String msg) {
long elapsedSeconds = (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime);
System.out.format("%1$5sms [%2$16s] %3$s\n", elapsedSeconds, Thread.currentThread().getName(), msg);
}
Output from running the sample code on my machine:
0ms [ main] calling runWithTimeout!
13ms [ pool-1-thread-1] starting sleep!
5015ms [ main] got timeout!
5016ms [ main] end of main method!
5015ms [ pool-1-thread-1] was interrupted!
Yes, but its generally a very bad idea to force another thread to interrupt on a random line of code. You would only do this if you intend to shutdown the process.
What you can do is to use Thread.interrupt() for a task after a certain amount of time. However, unless the code checks for this it won't work. An ExecutorService can make this easier with Future.cancel(true)
Its much better for the code to time itself and stop when it needs to.
If it is test code you want to time, then you can use the time attribute:
#Test(timeout = 1000)
public void shouldTakeASecondOrLess()
{
}
If it is production code, there is no simple mechanism, and which solution you use depends upon whether you can alter the code to be timed or not.
If you can change the code being timed, then a simple approach is is to have your timed code remember it's start time, and periodically the current time against this. E.g.
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
// .. do stuff ..
long elapsed = System.currentTimeMillis()-startTime;
if (elapsed>timeout)
throw new RuntimeException("tiomeout");
If the code itself cannot check for timeout, you can execute the code on another thread, and wait for completion, or timeout.
Callable<ResultType> run = new Callable<ResultType>()
{
#Override
public ResultType call() throws Exception
{
// your code to be timed
}
};
RunnableFuture<ResultType> future = new FutureTask<>(run);
ExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
service.execute(future);
ResultType result = null;
try
{
result = future.get(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS); // wait 1 second
}
catch (TimeoutException ex)
{
// timed out. Try to stop the code if possible.
future.cancel(true);
}
service.shutdown();
}
I can suggest two options.
Within the method, assuming it is looping and not waiting for an external event, add a local field and test the time each time around the loop.
void method() {
long endTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + 10000;
while (true) {
// method logic
if (System.currentTimeMillis() > endTimeMillis) {
// do some clean-up
return;
}
}
}
Run the method in a thread, and have the caller count to 10 seconds.
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
method();
}
});
thread.start();
long endTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + 10000;
while (thread.isAlive()) {
if (System.currentTimeMillis() > endTimeMillis) {
// set an error flag
break;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
}
catch (InterruptedException t) {}
}
The drawback to this approach is that method() cannot return a value directly, it must update an instance field to return its value.
EDIT: Peter Lawrey is completely right: it's not as simple as interrupting a thread (my original suggestion), and Executors & Callables are very useful ...
Rather than interrupting threads, you could set a variable on the Callable once the timeout is reached. The callable should check this variable at appropriate points in task execution, to know when to stop.
Callables return Futures, with which you can specify a timeout when you try to 'get' the future's result. Something like this:
try {
future.get(timeoutSeconds, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
myCallable.setStopMeAtAppropriatePlace(true);
}
See Future.get, Executors, and Callable ...
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html#get-long-java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit-
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Callable.html
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Executors.html#newFixedThreadPool%28int%29
I created a very simple solution without using any frameworks or APIs. This looks more elegant and understandable. The class is called TimeoutBlock.
public class TimeoutBlock {
private final long timeoutMilliSeconds;
private long timeoutInteval=100;
public TimeoutBlock(long timeoutMilliSeconds){
this.timeoutMilliSeconds=timeoutMilliSeconds;
}
public void addBlock(Runnable runnable) throws Throwable{
long collectIntervals=0;
Thread timeoutWorker=new Thread(runnable);
timeoutWorker.start();
do{
if(collectIntervals>=this.timeoutMilliSeconds){
timeoutWorker.stop();
throw new Exception("<<<<<<<<<<****>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Execution Time Exceeded In "+timeoutMilliSeconds+" Milli Seconds. Thread Block Terminated.");
}
collectIntervals+=timeoutInteval;
Thread.sleep(timeoutInteval);
}while(timeoutWorker.isAlive());
System.out.println("<<<<<<<<<<####>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Executed Within "+collectIntervals+" Milli Seconds.");
}
/**
* #return the timeoutInteval
*/
public long getTimeoutInteval() {
return timeoutInteval;
}
/**
* #param timeoutInteval the timeoutInteval to set
*/
public void setTimeoutInteval(long timeoutInteval) {
this.timeoutInteval = timeoutInteval;
}
}
example :
try {
TimeoutBlock timeoutBlock = new TimeoutBlock(10 * 60 * 1000);//set timeout in milliseconds
Runnable block=new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//TO DO write block of code to execute
}
};
timeoutBlock.addBlock(block);// execute the runnable block
} catch (Throwable e) {
//catch the exception here . Which is block didn't execute within the time limit
}
This was so much useful for me when i had to connect to a FTP account. Then download and upload stuff. sometimes FTP connection hangs or totally breaks. This caused whole system to go down. and i needed a way to detect it and prevent it from happening . So i created this and used it. Works pretty well.
I faced a similar kind of issue where my task was to push a message to SQS within a particular timeout. I used the trivial logic of executing it via another thread and waiting on its future object by specifying the timeout. This would give me a TIMEOUT exception in case of timeouts.
final Future<ISendMessageResult> future =
timeoutHelperThreadPool.getExecutor().submit(() -> {
return getQueueStore().sendMessage(request).get();
});
try {
sendMessageResult = future.get(200, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
logger.info("SQS_PUSH_SUCCESSFUL");
return true;
} catch (final TimeoutException e) {
logger.error("SQS_PUSH_TIMEOUT_EXCEPTION");
}
But there are cases where you can't stop the code being executed by another thread and you get true negatives in that case.
For example - In my case, my request reached SQS and while the message was being pushed, my code logic encountered the specified timeout. Now in reality my message was pushed into the Queue but my main thread assumed it to be failed because of the TIMEOUT exception.
This is a type of problem which can be avoided rather than being solved. Like in my case I avoided it by providing a timeout which would suffice in nearly all of the cases.
If the code you want to interrupt is within you application and is not something like an API call then you can simply use
future.cancel(true)
However do remember that java docs says that it does guarantee that the execution will be blocked.
"Attempts to cancel execution of this task. This attempt will fail if the task has already completed, has already been cancelled,or could not be cancelled for some other reason. If successful,and this task has not started when cancel is called,this task should never run. If the task has already started,then the mayInterruptIfRunning parameter determines whether the thread executing this task should be interrupted inan attempt to stop the task."
If you want a CompletableFuture way you could have a method like
public MyResponseObject retrieveDataFromEndpoint() {
CompletableFuture<MyResponseObject> endpointCall
= CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() ->
yourRestService.callEnpoint(withArg1, withArg2));
try {
return endpointCall.get(10, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
} catch (TimeoutException
| InterruptedException
| ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Unable to fetch data", e);
}
}
If you're using spring, you could annotate the method with a #Retryable so that it retries the method three times if an exception is thrown.
Instead of having the task in the new thread and the timer in the main thread, have the timer in the new thread and the task in the main thread:
public static class TimeOut implements Runnable{
public void run() {
Thread.sleep(10000);
if(taskComplete ==false) {
System.out.println("Timed Out");
return;
}
else {
return;
}
}
}
public static boolean taskComplete = false;
public static void main(String[] args) {
TimeOut timeOut = new TimeOut();
Thread timeOutThread = new Thread(timeOut);
timeOutThread.start();
//task starts here
//task completed
taskComplete =true;
while(true) {//do all other stuff }
}
There is a hacky way to do it.
Set some boolean field to indicate whether the work was completed. Then before the block of code, set a timer to run a piece of code after your timeout. The timer will check if the block of code had finished executing, and if not, throw an exception. Otherwise it will do nothing.
The end of the block of code should, of course, set the field to true to indicate the work was done.
There's a very simple option that nobody's mentioned yet:
Duration timeout = Duration.ofMinutes(5);
Thread thread = new Thread(() -> {
// your code here
});
thread.start();
thread.join(timeout.toMillis());
if (thread.isAlive()) {
thread.interrupt();
throw new MyTimeoutException();
}
If the thread running your code block fails to complete within the timeout, it is interrupted and whatever exception you want can be thrown.
It is possible to write code that will simply ignore the interruption and carry on. If you're dealing with this can cannot fix it then there is thread.stop(), but that can break any synchronisation mechanisms that you are relying on. See its deprecation notice.
You can also capture exceptions from the thread:
AtomicReference<Throwable> uncaughtException = new AtomicReference<>();
thread.setUncaughtExceptionHandler((t, ex) -> uncaughtException.setRelease(ex));
// ...
Throwable ex = uncaughtException.getAcquire();
if (ex != null) {
throw ex;
}
I had this problem too, my logs print out with ‘’Unexpected end of stream‘’.and ‘’Could not get a resource from the pool‘’，
I set the timeout of brpop to 30s, redis to 31s, and mysql database connection pool to 300s. For now, this error is not printed on the log, but I don't know if this error will be reported in the future.I don't know if it has a bad effect on my writing to the database