Develop Reference

How to create user defined SettableFuture in java [duplicate]

I am using multi-threading in java for my program.
I have run thread successfully but when I am using Thread.wait(), it is throwing java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException.
How can I make a thread wait until it will be notified?

You need to be in a synchronized block in order for Object.wait() to work.
Also, I recommend looking at the concurrency packages instead of the old school threading packages. They are safer and way easier to work with.
EDIT
I assumed you meant Object.wait() as your exception is what happens when you try to gain access without holding the objects lock.

wait is defined in Object, and not it Thread. The monitor on Thread is a little unpredictable.
Although all Java objects have monitors, it is generally better to have a dedicated lock:
private final Object lock = new Object();
You can get slightly easier to read diagnostics, at a small memory cost (about 2K per process) by using a named class:
private static final class Lock { }
private final Object lock = new Lock();
In order to wait or notify/notifyAll an object, you need to be holding the lock with the synchronized statement. Also, you will need a while loop to check for the wakeup condition (find a good text on threading to explain why).
synchronized (lock) {
while (!isWakeupNeeded()) {
lock.wait();
}
}
To notify:
synchronized (lock) {
makeWakeupNeeded();
lock.notifyAll();
}
It is well worth getting to understand both Java language and java.util.concurrent.locks locks (and java.util.concurrent.atomic) when getting into multithreading. But use java.util.concurrent data structures whenever you can.

I know this thread is almost 2 years old but still need to close this since I also came to this Q/A session with same issue...
Please read this definition of illegalMonitorException again and again...
IllegalMonitorException is thrown to indicate that a thread has attempted to wait on an object's monitor or to notify other threads waiting on an object's monitor without owning the specified monitor.
This line again and again says, IllegalMonitorException comes when one of the 2 situation occurs....
1> wait on an object's monitor without owning the specified monitor.
2> notify other threads waiting on an object's monitor without owning the specified monitor.
Some might have got their answers... who all doesn't, then please check 2 statements....
synchronized (object)
object.wait()
If both object are same... then no illegalMonitorException can come.
Now again read the IllegalMonitorException definition and you wont forget it again...

Based on your comments it sounds like you are doing something like this:
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable(){
public void run() { // do stuff }});
thread.start();
...
thread.wait();
There are three problems.
As others have said, obj.wait() can only be called if the current thread holds the primitive lock / mutex for obj. If the current thread does not hold the lock, you get the exception you are seeing.
The thread.wait() call does not do what you seem to be expecting it to do. Specifically, thread.wait() does not cause the nominated thread to wait. Rather it causes the current thread to wait until some other thread calls thread.notify() or thread.notifyAll().
There is actually no safe way to force a Thread instance to pause if it doesn't want to. (The nearest that Java has to this is the deprecated Thread.suspend() method, but that method is inherently unsafe, as is explained in the Javadoc.)
If you want the newly started Thread to pause, the best way to do it is to create a CountdownLatch instance and have the thread call await() on the latch to pause itself. The main thread would then call countDown() on the latch to let the paused thread continue.
Orthogonal to the previous points, using a Thread object as a lock / mutex may cause problems. For example, the javadoc for Thread::join says:
This implementation uses a loop of this.wait calls conditioned on this.isAlive. As a thread terminates the this.notifyAll method is invoked. It is recommended that applications not use wait, notify, or notifyAll on Thread instances.

Since you haven't posted code, we're kind of working in the dark. What are the details of the exception?
Are you calling Thread.wait() from within the thread, or outside it?
I ask this because according to the javadoc for IllegalMonitorStateException, it is:
Thrown to indicate that a thread has attempted to wait on an object's monitor or to notify other threads waiting on an object's monitor without owning the specified monitor.
To clarify this answer, this call to wait on a thread also throws IllegalMonitorStateException, despite being called from within a synchronized block:
private static final class Lock { }
private final Object lock = new Lock();
#Test
public void testRun() {
ThreadWorker worker = new ThreadWorker();
System.out.println ("Starting worker");
worker.start();
System.out.println ("Worker started - telling it to wait");
try {
synchronized (lock) {
worker.wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
String msg = "InterruptedException: [" + e1.getLocalizedMessage() + "]";
System.out.println (msg);
e1.printStackTrace();
System.out.flush();
}
System.out.println ("Worker done waiting, we're now waiting for it by joining");
try {
worker.join();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { }
}

In order to deal with the IllegalMonitorStateException, you must verify that all invocations of the wait, notify and notifyAll methods are taking place only when the calling thread owns the appropriate monitor. The most simple solution is to enclose these calls inside synchronized blocks. The synchronization object that shall be invoked in the synchronized statement is the one whose monitor must be acquired.
Here is the simple example for to understand the concept of monitor
public class SimpleMonitorState {
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
SimpleMonitorState t = new SimpleMonitorState();
SimpleRunnable m = new SimpleRunnable(t);
Thread t1 = new Thread(m);
t1.start();
t.call();
}
public void call() throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (this) {
wait();
System.out.println("Single by Threads ");
}
}
}
class SimpleRunnable implements Runnable {
SimpleMonitorState t;
SimpleRunnable(SimpleMonitorState t) {
this.t = t;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// Sleep
Thread.sleep(10000);
synchronized (this.t) {
this.t.notify();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

Thread.wait() call make sense inside a code that synchronizes on Thread.class object. I don't think it's what you meant.
You ask
How can I make a thread wait until it will be notified?
You can make only your current thread wait. Any other thread can be only gently asked to wait, if it agree.
If you want to wait for some condition, you need a lock object - Thread.class object is a very bad choice - it is a singleton AFAIK so synchronizing on it (except for Thread static methods) is dangerous.
Details for synchronization and waiting are already explained by Tom Hawtin.
java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException means you are trying to wait on object on which you are not synchronized - it's illegal to do so.

Not sure if this will help somebody else out or not but this was the key part to fix my problem in user "Tom Hawtin - tacklin"'s answer above:
synchronized (lock) {
makeWakeupNeeded();
lock.notifyAll();
}
Just the fact that the "lock" is passed as an argument in synchronized() and it is also used in "lock".notifyAll();
Once I made it in those 2 places I got it working

I received a IllegalMonitorStateException while trying to wake up a thread in / from a different class / thread. In java 8 you can use the lock features of the new Concurrency API instead of synchronized functions.
I was already storing objects for asynchronous websocket transactions in a WeakHashMap. The solution in my case was to also store a lock object in a ConcurrentHashMap for synchronous replies. Note the condition.await (not .wait).
To handle the multi threading I used a Executors.newCachedThreadPool() to create a thread pool.

Those who are using Java 7.0 or below version can refer the code which I used here and it works.
public class WaitTest {
private final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private final Condition condition = lock.newCondition();
public void waitHere(long waitTime) {
System.out.println("wait started...");
lock.lock();
try {
condition.await(waitTime, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
lock.unlock();
System.out.println("wait ends here...");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
//Your Code
new WaitTest().waitHere(10);
//Your Code
}
}

For calling wait()/notify() on object, it needs to be inside synchronized block. So first you have to take lock on object then would be possible to call these function.
synchronized(obj)
{
obj.wait()
}
For detailed explanation:
https://dzone.com/articles/multithreading-java-and-interviewspart-2

wait(), notify() and notifyAll() methods should only be called in syncronized contexts.
For example, in a syncronized block:
syncronized (obj) {
obj.wait();
}
Or, in a syncronized method:
syncronized static void myMethod() {
wait();
}

Can this reference in run() refer to Thread object when implementing Runnable?

Sorry if the question is unclear
I am making a simple multithread program that has a linked list to store all thread created except the main thread. Then I want to send some signal to terminate the main thread but only when all other threads have closed and I intend to do this by making that when the thread close, it will remove itself from linked list then the main thread will check if that list size == null or not
here is my code
public class MainProgram {
//some global static variable
static List<Thread> threadList = new LinkedList<Thread>();
public void main() throws IOException {
ServerSocket serverSocket;
serverSocket = new ServerSocket(1234);
while(true){
if(Shutdown_Handler.shutdown==true){
//wait for all other thread close/terminate
return
}
Socket s = serverSocket.accept();
ClientThread x = new ClientThread(s);
Thread y = new Thread(x);
threadList.add(y);
y.start();
}
}
}
when Shutdown_Handler.shutdown==true the main will check the threadList if it is null. The problem is I don't know how to make the thread remove itself from the list. As what I have searched, for normal object, I can create method like this
public class someObject {
public static void delete(){
if(list.size = null) return;
list.remove(this);
}
}
However, in case of thread, the Class implement Runnable so this reference is to the object but not the thread stored in the list

I would recommend using a HashMap instead of a List. The keys can be the Thread Name (e.g. Thread.getName()) and the values will be the Threads.
Map<String, Thread> threadMap = new HashMap<String, Thread>();
You should also create this Map as a synchronizedMap (using Collections.synchronizedMap(...))
Map<String, Thread> synchronizedMap = Collections.synchronizedMap(threadMap);
Now, whenever you construct a Thread, you pass this HashMap into its constructor and the Thread can hold a reference to it. Therefore, when the Thread is about to terminate it can remove itself from the HashMap by using its own Thread name as the key to remove.

Assuming that ClientThread is a Runnable, the basic code is:
public class ClientThread implements Runnable {
public void run() {
// do stuff
MainProgram.threadList.remove(Thread.currentThread());
}
}
However this has a couple of problems:
There are going to be multiple threads performing operations on a list without proper synchronization. That is incorrect, and you are liable to get intermittent failures if you do this.
Unless run() removes the thread from the list in a finally block, a thread that terminates abnormally is liable to not get removed.
It is bad design to use a global static. And worse design to expose it as a bare (non-private) variable.
A HashSet<Thread> would be more efficient if the number of threads is liable to be large.

Multiple threads working off the same list of strings, in java?

I'm trying to figure out the best way to have multiple threads working from the same list of strings. For example, say I have a list of words, and I want multiple threads to work on printing out each word on this list.
Here is what I came up with. The thread uses a while loop, and while the iterator has next, it prints out and removes it from the list.
import java.util.*;
public class ThreadsExample {
static Iterator it;
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
ArrayList<String> list = new ArrayList<>();
list.add("comet");
list.add("planet");
list.add("moon");
list.add("star");
list.add("asteroid");
list.add("rocket");
list.add("spaceship");
list.add("solar");
list.add("quasar");
list.add("blackhole");
it = list.iterator();
//launch three threads
RunIt rit = new RunIt();
rit.runit();
rit.runit();
rit.runit();
}
}
class RunIt implements Runnable {
public void run()
{
while (ThreadsExample.it.hasNext()) {
//Print out and remove string from the list
System.out.println(ThreadsExample.it.next());
ThreadsExample.it.remove();
}
}
public void runit() {
Thread thread = new Thread(new RunIt());
thread.start();
}
}
This seems to work, although I get some Exception in thread "Thread-2" Exception in thread "Thread-0" java.lang.IllegalStateException errors during the run:
Exception in thread "Thread-1" Exception in thread "Thread-0"
java.lang.IllegalStateException at
java.util.ArrayList$Itr.remove(ArrayList.java:864) at
RunIt.run(ThreadsExample.java:44) at
java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745) java.lang.IllegalStateException
at java.util.ArrayList$Itr.remove(ArrayList.java:864) at
RunIt.run(ThreadsExample.java:44) at
java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
Am I doing this correctly or is there a better way to have multiple threads working on the same pool of strings?

A better way to do this is to use a concurrent queue. The Queue interface is designed to hold elements in a structure prior to processing them.
final Queue<String> queue = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue<String>();
queue.offer("asteroid");
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
executorService.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println(queue.poll());
}
});
executorService.shutdown();

Try creating the list as a synchronized list using List.synchronizedList
Update your code like this:
ArrayList<String> list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<>());

Am I doing this correctly or is there a better way to have multiple threads working on the same pool of strings?
You are not doing it correctly. Your code is not properly synchronized, and therefore its behavior is not well defined. There are a great number of ways you could approach the general problem you present, but one way the issues in your particular code could be fixed would be to change RunIt.run() to properly synchronize:
public void run()
{
while (true) {
synchronized(ThreadsExample.it) {
if (ThreadsExample.it.hasNext()) {
//Print out and remove string from the list
System.out.println(ThreadsExample.it.next());
ThreadsExample.it.remove();
} else {
break;
}
}
}
}
Note here that the hasNext() check, retrieval of the next element, and removal of that element are all handled within the same synchronized block to ensure mutual consistency of these operations. On the other hand, the scope of that block is contained within the loop, so that different threads executing the loop concurrently each get a chance to execute.
Note, too, that although in this case all the threads synchronize on the Iterator object, that's basically just a convenience (for me). As long as they all synchronize on the same object, it doesn't matter so much which object that is.

Is a notify signalled on thread finish? Why does this code sample work?

I am looking in some puzzles for threads and I can't figure out why the following consistently prints 999999:
class Job extends Thread {
private Integer number = 0;
public void run() {
for (int i = 1; i < 1000000; i++) {
number++;
}
}
public Integer getNumber() {
return number;
}
}
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args)
throws InterruptedException {
Job thread = new Job();
thread.start();
synchronized (thread) {
thread.wait();
}
System.out.println(thread.getNumber());
}
}
There is no notify on the same lock (and spurious wakeup seem to be ignored).
If a thread finishes does a notify get signalled or something?
How come main prints the result and not get "stuck" waiting?

In the Javadoc for Java 7 Thread.join(long)
This implementation uses a loop of this.wait calls conditioned on this.isAlive. As a thread terminates the this.notifyAll method is invoked. It is recommended that applications not use wait, notify, or notifyAll on Thread instances.
Using a Thread directly this way is considered bad practical. Note: wait() could end for any number of reasons, possibly spuriously.
Based on a puzzler related to #Voo's comment. The point is you shouldn't play with the internal behaviour of Thread as this is more likely to lead to confusion.
public static String getName() {
return "MyProgram";
}
public static void main(String... args) {
new Thread() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("My program is " + getName());
}
}.start();
}
What does this program print?

For clarification, I have modified your code to this:
Job thread = new Job();
thread.start();
final Object lock = new Object();
synchronized (lock) { lock.wait(); }
System.out.println(thread.getNumber());
Now it blocks. That's a first-hand confirmation of what #Nitram has explained in his answer. If you care to have a look at the Thread implementation code, it will be quite obvious why this is the observed behavior.

NOTE: This answer has been edited extensively.
The reason for this behaviour is, that "someone" is calling notifyAll internally. This "someone" is the JVM itself as you can "see" in the C sources here:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/hotspot/hotspot/file/f95d63e2154a/src/share/vm/runtime/thread.cpp
In line 1531 the method ensure_join calls notifyAll. This is the counterpart to the wait calls in java.lang.Thread#join (as noted by Marko and others).
ensure_join in turn is called in line 1664 in the method JavaThread::exit.
Since this is "internal bookkeeping" nobody should rely on this behaviour.

Simply put a Thread notifies all waiting threads once the execution of the threads ends. Its not the proposed why to do this, but it works. To synchronize on the end of a thread rather use Thread.join.

A thread object is automatically notified when the thread finishes, that's why the main thread doesn't get stuck.

Well....notify serves purpose of premature notifying to the threads waiting on the locked object. if you don't use Notify ,then certainly when it finishes it releases lock.
So that is equivalent to notify
no it's not..Consider the situation below.
class Job extends Thread {
private Integer number = 0;
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
for (int i = 1; i < 1000000; i++) {
number++;
}
notify(); //releases lock here and your main thread continues
do sumthing...
do sumthing...
}
}
public Integer getNumber() {
return number;
}
}
if you don't use notify() ...lock will be released only after you do all your sumthings..

Should you synchronize the run method? Why or why not?

I have always thought that synchronizing the run method in a java class which implements Runnable is redundant. I am trying to figure out why people do this:
public class ThreadedClass implements Runnable{
//other stuff
public synchronized void run(){
while(true)
//do some stuff in a thread
}
}
}
It seems redundant and unnecessary since they are obtaining the object's lock for another thread. Or rather, they are making explicit that only one thread has access to the run() method. But since its the run method, isn't it itself its own thread? Therefore, only it can access itself and it doesn't need a separate locking mechanism?
I found a suggestion online that by synchronizing the run method you could potentially create a de-facto thread queue for instance by doing this:
public void createThreadQueue(){
ThreadedClass a = new ThreadedClass();
new Thread(a, "First one").start();
new Thread(a, "Second one, waiting on the first one").start();
new Thread(a, "Third one, waiting on the other two...").start();
}
I would never do that personally, but it lends to the question of why anyone would synchronize the run method. Any ideas why or why not one should synchronize the run method?

Synchronizing the run() method of a Runnable is completely pointless unless you want to share the Runnable among multiple threads and you want to sequentialize the execution of those threads. Which is basically a contradiction in terms.
There is in theory another much more complicated scenario in which you might want to synchronize the run() method, which again involves sharing the Runnable among multiple threads but also makes use of wait() and notify(). I've never encountered it in 21+ years of Java.

There is 1 advantage to using synchronized void blah() over void blah() { synchronized(this) { and that is your resulting bytecode will be 1 byte shorter, since the synchronization will be part of the method signature instead of an operation by itself. This may influence the chance to inline the method by the JIT compiler. Other than that there is no difference.
The best option is to use an internal private final Object lock = new Object() to prevent someone from potentially locking your monitor. It achieves the same result without the downside of the evil outside locking. You do have that extra byte, but it rarely makes a difference.
So I would say no, don't use the synchronized keyword in the signature. Instead, use something like
public class ThreadedClass implements Runnable{
private final Object lock = new Object();
public void run(){
synchronized(lock) {
while(true)
//do some stuff in a thread
}
}
}
}
Edit in response to comment:
Consider what synchronization does: it prevents other threads from entering the same code block. So imagine you have a class like the one below. Let's say the current size is 10. Someone tries to perform an add and it forces a resize of the backing array. While they're in the middle of resizing the array, someone calls a makeExactSize(5) on a different thread. Now all of a sudden you're trying to access data[6] and it bombs out on you. Synchronization is supposed to prevent that from happening. In multithreaded programs you simply NEED synchronization.
class Stack {
int[] data = new int[10];
int pos = 0;
void add(int inc) {
if(pos == data.length) {
int[] tmp = new int[pos*2];
for(int i = 0; i < pos; i++) tmp[i] = data[i];
data = tmp;
}
data[pos++] = inc;
}
int remove() {
return data[pos--];
}
void makeExactSize(int size) {
int[] tmp = new int[size];
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++) tmp[i] = data[i];
data = tmp;
}
}

Why? Minimal extra safety and I don't see any plausible scenario where it would make a difference.
Why not? It's not standard. If you are coding as part of a team, when some other member sees your synchronized run he'll probably waste 30 minutes trying to figure out what is so special either with your run or with the framework you are using to run the Runnable's.

From my experience, it's not useful to add "synchronized" keyword to run() method. If we need synchronize multiple threads, or we need a thread-safe queue, we can use more appropriate components, such as ConcurrentLinkedQueue.

Well you could theoretically call the run method itself without problem (after all it is public). But that doesn't mean one should do it. So basically there's no reason to do this, apart from adding negligible overhead to the thread calling run(). Well except if you use the instance multiple times calling new Thread - although I'm a) not sure that's legal with the threading API and b) seems completely useless.
Also your createThreadQueue doesn't work. synchronized on a non-static method synchronizes on the instance object (ie this), so all three threads will run in parallel.

Go through the code comments and uncomment and run the different blocks to clearly see the difference, note synchronization will have a difference only if the same runnable instance is used, if each thread started gets a new runnable it won't make any difference.
class Kat{
public static void main(String... args){
Thread t1;
// MyUsualRunnable is usual stuff, only this will allow concurrency
MyUsualRunnable m0 = new MyUsualRunnable();
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
t1 = new Thread(m0);//*imp* here all threads created are passed the same runnable instance
t1.start();
}
// run() method is synchronized , concurrency killed
// uncomment below block and run to see the difference
MySynchRunnable1 m1 = new MySynchRunnable1();
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
t1 = new Thread(m1);//*imp* here all threads created are passed the same runnable instance, m1
// if new insances of runnable above were created for each loop then synchronizing will have no effect
t1.start();
}
// run() method has synchronized block which lock on runnable instance , concurrency killed
// uncomment below block and run to see the difference
/*
MySynchRunnable2 m2 = new MySynchRunnable2();
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
// if new insances of runnable above were created for each loop then synchronizing will have no effect
t1 = new Thread(m2);//*imp* here all threads created are passed the same runnable instance, m2
t1.start();
}*/
}
}
class MyUsualRunnable implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run(){
try {Thread.sleep(1000);} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
class MySynchRunnable1 implements Runnable{
// this is implicit synchronization
//on the runnable instance as the run()
// method is synchronized
#Override
public synchronized void run(){
try {Thread.sleep(1000);} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
class MySynchRunnable2 implements Runnable{
// this is explicit synchronization
//on the runnable instance
//inside the synchronized block
// MySynchRunnable2 is totally equivalent to MySynchRunnable1
// usually we never synchronize on this or synchronize the run() method
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
try {Thread.sleep(1000);} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
}