When I try to use methods inside a class in which I extend Thread it does not receive the methods after the run.
My class:
public class PassPhraseValidator<E> extends Thread {
private List<E> list;
private boolean isValid;
private String passPhrase;
public PassPhraseValidator(List<E> list) {
this.list = list;
}
public String getPassPhrase() {
return passPhrase;
}
public boolean isValid() {
return isValid;
}
public void run(){
this.passPhrase = Arrays.toString(list.toArray());
this.isValid = list.stream().filter(e -> Collections.frequency(list, e) > 1).count() == 0;
}
}
So when I execute this class like this:
PassPhraseValidator<Integer> validIntegerPassPhrase = new PassPhraseValidator<>(Arrays.asList(12, 18, 15, 32));
validIntegerPassPhrase.start();
System.out.println(validIntegerPassPhrase.getPassPhrase() + " valid: " + validIntegerPassPhrase.isValid());
It gives me false while it should be true because the run function wasn't ran yet.
What am I doing wrong here? How can I make multithreading part of this? It does work when I directly put it inside the methods.
The last System.out.println statement does not wait for your thread (the run function) to complete.
One way to wait for its completion is to call the join method
validIntegerPassPhrase.join(); //Need to handle the InterruptedException it might throw
System.out.println(validIntegerPassPhrase.getPassPhrase() + " valid: " + validIntegerPassPhrase.isValid());
Explanation
What you are doing is called multithreading. This allows multiple threads to execute code concurrency or in parallel. Programs run on something called the main thread. This means one thread is executing all code systematically; one instruction after another. When introducing another thread like you are, the program execution is being done on different logic at the same time. So, when you execute the start() method on your implementation of the thread class, you are causing it to execute it's respective run() method in the background until; it completes, an exception is thrown, the application is shutdown, or the thread is stopped.
Lets step through your code and analyze the scenario.
Thread object is instantiated by the main thread. Lets call this new thread thread2.
thread2 is started by the main thread.
thread2 and the main thread are both running in parallel. This means code is being executed by both of them (for simplicity) at the same time.
Two possibilities could be occurring for this issue; Java Memory Barrier (beyond the scope of this question but more reference here) or timing. The main thread is most likely reading the print statement before thread2 can finish it's respective run() method.
Solution
An approach may be not to use multi-threading at all. The creation of threads is quite a costly operation and should not be done frequently. Typically, in app's that require multi-threading thread-pools are utilized instead.
Utilize the join() blocking function. Join forces the calling thread (in this case it would be the main thread) to wait for the respective thread to finish execution before continuation.
Implement the thread with use of Promise. This object is a wrapper for the Future class, allowing for the get() method to be blocking. This means the calling thread (in this case it would be the main thread) to wait for the respective thread to finish execution before continuation. An example of Promise's can be found here.
Related
E.g. method public static void sleep(long millis). This method causes current thread to sleep, but how does it know, which thread is current? Static methods are object-independent and belong to class, so how does this mechanism work?
This method causes current thread to sleep, but how does it know, which thread is current?
The current thread is managed by the underlying operating system (or the threading system). The underlying (system dependant) thread implementation provides a handle to the current thread:
In case of POSIX threads, there is the API call pthread_self() which returns the thread ID of the currently executing thread. You can think of Thread.currentThread() eventually calling this C function and wrap the thread ID in a Java Thread object which is then returned.
In case of MS Windows, there is the API call GetCurrentThread() which returns the Windows Handle of the currently executing thread. Again, you can think of Thread.currentThread() eventually calling this C function and wrap the Handle in a Java Thread object which is returned.
native methods are special. They have access beyond the Java API.
In this case, to the current thread. You can't use this method to put another thread to sleep - the other thread will have to do this by itself (but you can send it a message, obviously).
This method is always called for the current / executing thread.
It means your current thread will go in sleep mode for a perticlar time.
Ex: if i will write Thread.sleep(1000) thread will go to sleep state for 1000 miliseconds.
We use this menthod mainly to interchange between the thread.In short, it will give chance to another thread for execution.
The current thread is the one actually executing the piece of code. As simple as that.
For instance:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Before sleeping!");
Thread.sleep(10000);
System.out.println("After sleeping!");
}
}
Thread t1 = new Thread(r);
Thread t2 = new Thread(r);
System.out.println("Main thread!");
}
May output something like:
Before sleeping! // t1
Main thread! // main
Before sleeping! // t2
After sleeping! // t1
After sleeping! // t2
I have a loop that doing this:
WorkTask wt = new WorkTask();
wt.count = count;
Thread a = new Thread(wt);
a.start();
When the workTask is run, the count will wt++ ,
but the WorkTask doesn't seems change the count number, and between the thread, the variable can't share within two thread, what did I wrote wrong? Thanks.
Without seeing the code for WorkThread it's hard to pin down the problem, but most likely you are missing synchronization between the two threads.
Whenever you start a thread, there are no guarantees on whether the original thread or the newly created thread runs first, or how they are scheduled. The JVM/operating system could choose to run the original thread to completion and then start running the newly created thread, run the newly created thread to completion and then switch back to the original thread, or anything in between.
In order to control how the threads run, you have to synchronize them explicitly. There are several ways to control the interaction between threads - certainly too much to describe in a single answer. I would recommend the concurrency trail of the Java tutorials for a broad overview, but in your specific case the synchronization mechanisms to get you started will probably be Thread.join and the synchronized keyword (one specific use of this keyword is described in the Java tutorials).
Make the count variable static (it looks like each thread has its own version of the variable right now) and use a mutex to make it thread safe (ie use the synchronized instruction)
From your description I came up with the following to demonstrate what I perceived as your issue. This code, should output 42. But it outputs 41.
public class Test {
static class WorkTask implements Runnable {
static int count;
#Override
public void run() {
count++;
}
}
public static void main(String... args) throws Exception {
WorkTask wt = new WorkTask();
wt.count = 41;
Thread a = new Thread(wt);
a.start();
System.out.println(wt.count);
}
}
The problem is due to the print statement running before thread had a chance to start.
To cause the current thread ( the thread that is going to read variable count ) to wait until the thread finishes, add the following after starting thre thread.
a.join();
If you are wishing to get a result back from a thread, I would recommend you to use Callable
interface and an ExecutorSercive to submit it. e.g:
Future future = Executors.newCachedThreadPool().submit
(new Callable<Interger>()
{
int count = 1000;
#Override public Integer call() throws Exception
{
//here goes the operations you want to be executed concurrently.
return count + 1; //Or whatever the result is.
}
}
//Here goes the operations you need before the other thread is done.
System.out.println(future.get()); //Here you will retrieve the result from
//the other thread. if the result is not ready yet, the main thread
//(current thread) will wait for it to finish.
this way you don't have to deal with the synchronization problems and etc.
you can see further about this in Java documentations:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/package-summary.html
I wrote a test app that should never stop. It issues t.wait() (t is a Thread object), but I never call notify. Why does this code end?
Despite the main thread synchronizing on t, the spawned thread runs, so it doesn't lock this object.
public class ThreadWait {
public static void main(String sArgs[]) throws InterruptedException {
System.out.println("hello");
Thread t = new MyThread();
synchronized (t) {
t.start();
Thread.sleep(5000);
t.wait();
java.lang.System.out.println("main done");
}
}
}
class MyThread extends Thread {
public void run() {
for (int i = 1; i <= 5; i++) {
java.lang.System.out.println("" + i);
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
}
The result is that the main thread waits 5 seconds and during this time worker gives its output. Then after 5 seconds are finished, the program exits. t.wait() does not wait. If the main thread wouldn't sleep for 5 seconds (commenting this line), then t.wait() would actually wait until the worker finishes. Of course, join() is a method to use here, but, unexpectedly, wait() does the same thing as join(). Why?
Maybe the JVM sees that, since only one thread is running, there is no chance to notify the main thread and solves the deadlock. If this is true, is it a documented feature?
I'm testing on Windows XP, Java 6.
You're waiting on a Thread - and while most objects aren't implicitly notified, a Thread object is notified when the thread terminates. It's documented somewhere (I'm looking for it...) that you should not use wait/notify on Thread objects, as that's done internally.
This is a good example of why it's best practice to use a "private" object for synchronization (and wait/notify) - something which only your code knows about. I usually use something like:
private final Object lock = new Object();
(In general, however, it's cleaner to use some of the higher-level abstractions provided by java.util.concurrent if you can. As noted in comments, it's also a good idea to implement Runnable rather than extending Thread yourself.)
The JavaDoc for wait gives the answer: spurious wakeups are possible. This means the JVM is free to end a call to wait whenever it wants.
The documentation even gives you a solution if you don't want this (which is probably always the case): put the call to wait in a loop and check whether the condition you wait for has become true after every wakeup.
I have a litte race condition in my current android instrumentation test. What I want is:
T1: Start Thread T2
T2: Do something
T1: Join with T2
With step 1 and 3 being Android live cycle events. But because in the instrumentation test everything happens very fast I get:
T1: Start Thread T2
T1: Join with T2 (which turn out to be a no-op)
T2: Do something
Sure I could add a few sleeps to get the desired behaviour but I wonder if there is better way to do it. i.E. is there a way to make sure the thread which was just start ()-ed did actually start for good and is not still sitting in some scheduling queue awaiting start-up.
(Andy boy, do I miss Ada's rendezvous based multitasking)
And to answer mat's question:
if (this.thread != null && this.thread.isAlive ())
{
this.stop.set (true);
try
{
this.thread.join (1000);
}
catch (final InterruptedException Exception)
{
android.util.Log.w (Actor.TAG, "Thread did not want to join.", Exception);
} // try
} // if
As I said: no-op when because the thread has not started yet.
I typically use a CountDownLatch e.g. see this answer on testing asynchronous processes.
If you want to synchronise the starting of many threads you can also use a CyclicBarrier.
Martin, looking at your code I get the feeling that you may not be using the Thread class the way it was designed to be used. In particular, testing whether the other thread is alive seems like an anti-pattern. In most practical scenarios you can omit the this.thread.isAlive () condition from your code, and the program will still work.
It seems that you're trying to make two threads (that should do two different things) run the same piece of code, and you use logical conditions (such as this.thread != null) to decide which of the two threads is currently running.
Typically, you'd write two classes each one extending Thread and implementing a run() method. Each run() method realizes the logic of a single thread. Then you'd launch the 2nd thread from the first, and call join() on that 2nd thread to wait for it to complete.
public class SecondThread extends Thread {
public void run() {
...
}
}
public class FirstThread extends Thread {
public void run() {
// Only FirstThread is running
...
SecondThread st = new SecondThread();
st.start();
// Now both threads are running
...
st.join(); // Wait for SecondThread to complete
// Only FirstThread is running
...
}
}
I want to write a command line daemon that runs forever. I understand that if I want the JVM to be able to shutdown gracefully in linux, one needs to wrap the bootstrap via some C code. I think I'll be ok with a shutdown hook for now.
On to my questions:
My main(String[]) block will fire off a separate Superdaemon.
The Superdaemon will poll and loop forever.
So normally I would do:
class Superdaemon extends Thread { ... }
class Bootstrap
{
public static void main( String[] args )
{
Thread t = new Superdaemon();
t.start();
t.join();
}
}
Now I figured that if I started Superdaemon via an Executor, I can do
Future<?> f = exec.submit( new Superdaemon() );
f.get();
Is Future.get() implemented with Thread.join() ?
If not, does it behave equivalently ?
Regards,
ashitaka
Yes, the way you've written these is equivalent.
However, you don't really need to wait for the Superdaemon thread to complete. When the main thread finishes executing main(), that thread exits, but the JVM will not. The JVM will keep running until the last non-daemon thread exits its run method.
For example,
public class KeepRunning {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Superdaemon d = new Superdaemon();
d.start();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": leaving main()");
}
}
class Superdaemon extends Thread {
public void run() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": starting");
try { Thread.sleep(2000); } catch(InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": completing");
}
}
You'll see the output:
main: leaving main()
Thread-0: starting
Thread-0: completing
In other words, the main thread finishes first, then the secondary thread completes and the JVM exits.
The issue is that books like JCIP is advocating that we use Executors to starts Threads. So I'm trying my best not to use Thread.start(). I'm not sure if I would necessarily choose a particular way of doing things just based on simplicity. There must be a more convincing reason, no ?
The convincing reason to use java.util.concurrent is that multi-threaded programming is very tricky. Java offers the tools to that (Threads, the synchronized and volatile keywords), but that does not mean that you can safely use them directly without shooting yourself in the foot: Either too much synchronization, resulting in unnecessary bottlenecks and deadlocks, or too less, resulting in erratic behaviour due to race conditions).
With java.util.concurrent you get a set of utilities (written by experts) for the most common usage patterns, that you can just use without worrying that you got the low-level stuff right.
In your particular case, though, I do not quite see why you need a separate Thread at all, you might as well use the main one:
public static void main( String[] args )
{
Runnable t = new Superdaemon();
t.run();
}
Executors are meant for tasks that you want to run in the background (when you have multiple parallel tasks or when your current thread can continue to do something else).
Future.get() will get the future response from an asynchronous call. This will also block if the call has not been completed yet. It is much like a thread join.
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html
Sort'a. Future.get() is for having a thread go off and calculate something and then return it to the calling thread in a safe fashion. It'd work if the get never returned. But, I'd stick with the join call as it's simpler and no Executer overhead (not that there would be all that much).
Edit
It looks like ExecutorService.submit(Runnable) is intended to do exectly what you're attempting. It just returns null when the Runnable completes. Interesting.