make code async with forJoinPool - java

Hello I have with try catch structure and want to make code async in finally statement. I try to put this part into lambda and cast to task, to put it ForkJoinPool, but there is the Class Cast Exception. How to make async this part of code better. Does I have to use atomic or volatile before fields?
public class Record {
private String actionDetails;
public void setActionDetails(String actionDetails) {
this.actionDetails = actionDetails;
}
}
public class Recorder {
private Record record;
public void record(Record record){
this.record = record;
}
}
public class Test {
private static Recorder recorder = new Recorder();
private static StringBuilder builder;
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
// other code
builder.append("Test");
} finally {
Runnable runnable = () -> {
final Record record = new Record();
record.setActionDetails(builder.toString());
recorder.record(record);
};
ForkJoinTask<?> task = (ForkJoinTask<?>)runnable;
ForkJoinPool pool = new ForkJoinPool();
pool.invoke(task);
}
}
}

I mean this way:
ForkJoinPool pool = new ForkJoinPool();
pool.submit(() -> {
final Record record = new Record();
record.setActionDetails(builder.toString());
recorder.record(record);
});
but Is it need to use some modifier before fields ?

Related

Java FixedThreadPool with resources per thread?

This is a pseudocode version of my current working code:
public class DataTransformer {
private final boolean async = true;
private final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
public void modifyAsync(Data data) {
if (async) {
executorService.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
modify(data);
}
});
} else {
modify(data);
}
}
// This should actually be a variable inside modify(byte[] data)
// But I reuse it to avoid reallocation
// This is no problem in this case
// Because whether or not async is true, only one thread is used
private final byte[] temp = new byte[1024];
private void modify(Data data) {
// Do work using temp
data.setReady(true); // Sets a volatile flag
}
}
Please read the comments. But now I want to use Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10) instead of Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(). This is easily possible in my case by moving the field temp inside modify(Data data), such that each execution has it's own temp array. But that's not what I want to do because i want to reuse the array if possible. Instead I want for each of the 10 threads a temp array. What's the best way to achieve this?
As static variable is shared between all Threads, so you could declare as static. But if you want to use different values then either use Threadlocal or use different object.
With ThreadLocal you could do :
ThreadLocal<byte[]> value = ThreadLocal.withInitial(() -> new byte[1024]);
You could also use object like this:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
Test test = new Test();
test.test();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
class Control {
public volatile byte[] temp = "Hello World".getBytes();
}
final Control control = new Control();
class T1 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
String a = Arrays.toString(control.temp);
System.out.println(a);
}
}
class T2 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
String a = Arrays.toString(control.temp);
System.out.println(a);
}
}
private void test() {
T1 t1 = new T1();
T2 t2 = new T2();
new Thread(t1).start();
new Thread(t2).start();
}
}

synchronized before field outside of new Thread()

I want to make a part of asynchronous. I added a new Thread() and put to it code. What have to be done with fields and methods outside?
public class Record {
private String actionDetails;
public void setActionDetails(String actionDetails) {
this.actionDetails = actionDetails;
}
}
public class Recorder {
private Record record;
public void record(Record record){
this.record = record;
}
}
public class Test {
private static Recorder recorder = new Recorder();
private static StringBuilder builder;
public static void main(String[] args) {
builder.append("Test");
new Thread(() -> {
final Record record = new Record();
record.setActionDetails(builder.toString());
recorder.record(record);
}).start();
}
}
I think that for recorder, record(), setActionDetails() should use synchronized modificator and use StringBuffer instead StringBuilder.

How to get the output stream from a thread

I currently have several runnable classes, each printing a string upon completion using System.out.println().
In the main() I execute them using a ExecutorService ,executor.execute() for each of them.
I am wondering after executing those threads, how to get the output stream from them for future use ?
Pretty much like using .getInputStream for processes but there's no such method in the Thread class. Thanks!
There's a class which implements runnable interface like this:
public class A implements Runnable {
public void run() {
System.out.println(5); //this thread always print out number 5
}
}
and in the main function I need to get the printed number and store it
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService ThreadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
ThreadPool.execute(new A()); //This statement will cause the thread object A
//to print out number 5 on the screen
ThreadPool.shutdown();
......
}
Now I need to get the printed number 5 and store it into, say an integer variable.
I think below code will satisfy your requirement.
class MyCallable implements Callable<InputStream>
{
#Override
public InputStream call() throws Exception {
//InputStream inputStreamObject = create object for InputStream
return inputStreamObject;
}
}
class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
List<Future<InputStream>> list = new ArrayList<Future<InputStream>>();
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
Callable<InputStream> worker = new MyCallable();
Future<InputStream> submit = executor.submit(worker);
list.add(submit);
}
InputStream inputStreamObject = null;
for (Future<InputStream> future : list) {
try {
inputStreamObject = future.get();
//use inputStreamObject as your needs
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
executor.shutdown();
}
}
Runnable and Callable in thread:
runnable interface has a method public abstract void run(); void - which means after completing run method, it will not return anything. Callable<V> interface has a method V call() throws Exception; which means after completing call method, it will return Object V that is parametrized as
public class Run_Vs_Call {
public static void main(String...args){
CallableTask call = new CallableTask();
RunnableTask run = new RunnableTask();
try{
FutureTask<String> callTask = new FutureTask<String>(call);
Thread runTask = new Thread(run);
callTask.run();
runTask.start();
System.out.println(callTask.get());
}catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static class CallableTask implements Callable<String>{
public String call( ){
String stringObject = "Inside call method..!! I am returning this string";
System.out.println(stringObject);
return stringObject;
}
}
public static class RunnableTask implements Runnable{
public void run(){
String stringObject = "Inside Run Method, I can not return any thing";
System.out.println(stringObject);
}
}
}
you can use new static class:
public class Global{
//example
public static ..
public static ..
}

Concurrent tests: test case scenario automatization

Task definition: I need to test custom concurrent collection or some container which manipulates with collections in concurrent environment. More precisely - I've read-API and write-API. I should test if there is any scenarios where I can get inconsistent data.
Problem: All concurrent test frameworks (like MultiThreadedTC, look at MultiThreadedTc section of my question) just provides you an ability to control the asynchronous code execution sequence. I mean you should suppose a critical scenarios by your own.
Broad question: Is there frameworks that can take annotations like #SharedResource, #readAPI, #writeAPI and check if your data will always be consistent? Is that impossible or I just leak a startup idea?
Annotation: If there is no such framework, but you find the idea attractive, you are welcome to contact me or propose your ideas.
Narrow question: I'm new in concurrency. So can you suggest which scenarios should I test in the code below? (look at PeerContainer class)
PeerContainer:
public class PeersContainer {
public class DaemonThreadFactory implements ThreadFactory {
private int counter = 1;
private final String prefix = "Daemon";
#Override
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
Thread thread = new Thread(r, prefix + "-" + counter);
thread.setDaemon(true);
counter++;
return thread;
}
}
private static class CacheCleaner implements Runnable {
private final Cache<Long, BlockingDeque<Peer>> cache;
public CacheCleaner(Cache<Long, BlockingDeque<Peer>> cache) {
this.cache = cache;
Thread.currentThread().setDaemon(true);
}
#Override
public void run() {
cache.cleanUp();
}
}
private final static int MAX_CACHE_SIZE = 100;
private final static int STRIPES_AMOUNT = 10;
private final static int PEER_ACCESS_TIMEOUT_MIN = 30;
private final static int CACHE_CLEAN_FREQUENCY_MIN = 1;
private final static PeersContainer INSTANCE;
private final Cache<Long, BlockingDeque<Peer>> peers = CacheBuilder.newBuilder()
.maximumSize(MAX_CACHE_SIZE)
.expireAfterWrite(PEER_ACCESS_TIMEOUT_MIN, TimeUnit.MINUTES)
.removalListener(new RemovalListener<Long, BlockingDeque<Peer>>() {
public void onRemoval(RemovalNotification<Long, BlockingDeque<Peer>> removal) {
if (removal.getCause() == RemovalCause.EXPIRED) {
for (Peer peer : removal.getValue()) {
peer.sendLogoutResponse(peer);
}
}
}
})
.build();
private final Striped<Lock> stripes = Striped.lock(STRIPES_AMOUNT);
private final ScheduledExecutorService scheduledExecutorService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1, new DaemonThreadFactory());
private PeersContainer() {
scheduledExecutorService.schedule(new CacheCleaner(peers), CACHE_CLEAN_FREQUENCY_MIN, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
}
static {
INSTANCE = new PeersContainer();
}
public static PeersContainer getInstance() {
return INSTANCE;
}
private final Cache<Long, UserAuthorities> authToRestore = CacheBuilder.newBuilder()
.maximumSize(MAX_CACHE_SIZE)
.expireAfterWrite(PEER_ACCESS_TIMEOUT_MIN, TimeUnit.MINUTES)
.build();
public Collection<Peer> getPeers(long sessionId) {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(peers.getIfPresent(sessionId));
}
public Collection<Peer> getAllPeers() {
BlockingDeque<Peer> result = new LinkedBlockingDeque<Peer>();
for (BlockingDeque<Peer> deque : peers.asMap().values()) {
result.addAll(deque);
}
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(result);
}
public boolean addPeer(Peer peer) {
long key = peer.getSessionId();
Lock lock = stripes.get(key);
lock.lock();
try {
BlockingDeque<Peer> userPeers = peers.getIfPresent(key);
if (userPeers == null) {
userPeers = new LinkedBlockingDeque<Peer>();
peers.put(key, userPeers);
}
UserAuthorities authorities = restoreSession(key);
if (authorities != null) {
peer.setAuthorities(authorities);
}
return userPeers.offer(peer);
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
public void removePeer(Peer peer) {
long sessionId = peer.getSessionId();
Lock lock = stripes.get(sessionId);
lock.lock();
try {
BlockingDeque<Peer> userPeers = peers.getIfPresent(sessionId);
if (userPeers != null && !userPeers.isEmpty()) {
UserAuthorities authorities = userPeers.getFirst().getAuthorities();
authToRestore.put(sessionId, authorities);
userPeers.remove(peer);
}
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
void removePeers(long sessionId) {
Lock lock = stripes.get(sessionId);
lock.lock();
try {
peers.invalidate(sessionId);
authToRestore.invalidate(sessionId);
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
private UserAuthorities restoreSession(long sessionId) {
BlockingDeque<Peer> activePeers = peers.getIfPresent(sessionId);
return (activePeers != null && !activePeers.isEmpty()) ? activePeers.getFirst().getAuthorities() : authToRestore.getIfPresent(sessionId);
}
public void resetAccessedTimeout(long sessionId) {
Lock lock = stripes.get(sessionId);
lock.lock();
try {
BlockingDeque<Peer> deque = peers.getIfPresent(sessionId);
peers.invalidate(sessionId);
peers.put(sessionId, deque);
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
MultiThreadedTC test case sample: [optional section of question]
public class ProducerConsumerTest extends MultithreadedTestCase {
private LinkedTransferQueue<String> queue;
#Override
public void initialize() {
super.initialize();
queue = new LinkedTransferQueue<String>();
}
public void thread1() throws InterruptedException {
String ret = queue.take();
}
public void thread2() throws InterruptedException {
waitForTick(1);
String ret = queue.take();
}
public void thread3() {
waitForTick(1);
waitForTick(2);
queue.put("Event 1");
queue.put("Event 2");
}
#Override
public void finish() {
super.finish();
assertEquals(true, queue.size() == 0);
}
}
Sounds like a job for static analysis, not testing, unless you have time to run multiple trillions of test cases. You pretty much can't test multithreaded behaviour - test behaviour in a single thread, then prove the abscence of threading bugs.
Try:
http://www.contemplateltd.com/threadsafe
http://checkthread.org/

FutureTask with Callable that references the FutureTask

I have a situation where I need to create a FutureTask with a Callable that checks if it's owner has been cancelled. The code I have looks like this:
public static FutureTask<Result> makeFuture(final Call call, final TaskCompletionCallback completion) {
return new FutureTask<Result>(new Callable<Result>() {
#Override
public Result call() throws Exception {
Result result = CYLib.doNetworkRequest(call, new CarryOnCallback() {
#Override
public boolean shouldCarryOn() {
return !FutureTask.isDone();
}
});
return result;
}
});
}
Basically the doNetworkRequest asks the CarryOnCallback if it should continue at certain times during the operation. I would like for this callback to see if the FutureTask that is calling the doNetworkRequest was cancelled, which involves querying the actual FutureTask object.
Now I know that you can't really access 'this' because it hasn't been constructed yet. But is there a way around this, or a better design for my situation?
Cheers
EDIT:
Ok so I'm going about it like this now. Made a custom Callable and FutureTask. The Callable holds a reference to the FutureTask and this can be set manually after creating a new Callable:
public static MyTask makeMyTask(final Call call, final TaskCompletionCallback completion) {
MyTask task = null;
MyTask.InnerCallable innerCallable = new MyTask.InnerCallable(call, completion);
task = new MyTask(innerCallable);
innerCallable.setParent(task);
return task;
}
And just for reference, the InnerCallable looks like this:
public static class MyTask extends FutureTask<Result> {
InnerCallable callable;
public MyTask(InnerCallable callable) {
super(callable);
this.callable = callable;
}
private static class InnerCallable implements Callable<Result> {
private final Call call;
private final TaskCompletionCallback completion;
private WeakReference<MyTask> parentTask;
InnerCallable(Call call, TaskCompletionCallback completion) {
this.call = call;
this.completion = completion;
}
#Override
public Result call() {
Result result = CYLib.doNetworkRequest(this.call, new CarryOnCallback() {
#Override
public boolean shouldCarryOn() {
MyTask task = parentTask.get();
return !(task == null || task.isCancelled());
}
});
return result;
}
private void setParent(MyTask parentTask) {
this.parentTask = new WeakReference<MyTask>(parentTask);
}
}
}
So, your CYLib.doNetworkRequest() is working in another thread?
private static Map<Call,FutureTask> map=new HashMap();
public static FutureTask<Result> makeFuture(final Call call, final TaskCompletionCallback completion) {
FutureTask<Result> futureResult = new FutureTask<Result>(new Callable<Result>() {
#Override
public Result call() throws Exception {
Result result = CYLib.doNetworkRequest(call, new CarryOnCallback() {
#Override
public boolean shouldCarryOn() {
return !map.get(call).isCancelled();
}
});
return result;
}
});
map.put(call,futureResult);
return futureResult;
}

Categories

Resources