Develop Reference

A thread that runs without stopping

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

Creating a Thread that does not exit

I was wondering what the best way to create a Java Thread that does not terminate.
Currently, I basically have a "Runner" that basically looks like:
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; ++i) {
pool.submit(new Task());
}
pool.shutdown();
and Task looks something like this
public class Task {
...
public void run() {
while(true) { }
}
}
There are two concerns I have with my approach:
Should I be creating a task that just returns after doing work and continue spawning threads that do minimal amounts of work? I'm concerned about the overhead, but am not sure how to measure it.
If I have a Thread that just loops infinitely, when I force quit the executable, will those Threads be shutdown and cleaned up? After some testing, it doesn't appear an InterruptException is being thrown when the code containing the ExecutorService is forcefully shutdown.
EDIT:
To elaborate, the Task looks like
public void run() {
while(true) {
// Let queue be a synchronized, global queue
if (queue has an element) {
// Pop from queue and do a very minimal amount of work on it
// Involves a small amount of network IO (maybe 10-100 ms)
} else {
sleep(2000);
}
}
}

I agree with #D Levant, Blocking queue is the key to use here. With blocking queue, you don't need to handle the queue-empty or queue-full scenario.
In your Task class,
while(true) {
// Let queue be a synchronized, global queue
if (queue has an element) {
// Pop from queue and do a very minimal amount of work on it
// Involves a small amount of network IO (maybe 10-100 ms)
} else {
sleep(2000);
}
}
Its really not a good approach, its inefficient because your while loop is continuously polling, even you have put the thread sleep(), but still its also a overhead of unnecessary context-switches every time the thread wake-ups and sleeps.
In my opinion, your approach of using Executors is looking good for your case. Thread creation is obviously a costly process, and Executors provide us the flexibility of re-using the same thread for different tasks.
You can just pass your task through execute(Runnable) or submit(Runnable/Callable) and then rest will be taken care by Executors internally. Executors internally uses blocking queue concept only.
You can even create your own thread pool by using the ThreadPoolExecutor class and passing the required parameter in its constructor, here you can pass your own blocking queue to hold the tasks. Rest thread-management will be taken care by it on basis of the configuration passes in constructor, So If you are really confident about the configuration parameters then you can go for it.
Now the last point, If you don't want to use the Java's in-built Executors framework, then you can design your solution by using BlockingQueue to hold tasks and starting a thread which will take the tasks from this blocking queue to execute, Below is the high-level implementation:
class TaskRunner {
private int noOfThreads; //The no of threads which you want to run always
private boolean started;
private int taskQueueSize; //No. of tasks that can be in queue at a time, when try to add more tasks, then you have to wait.
private BlockingQueue<Runnable> taskQueue;
private List<Worker> workerThreads;
public TaskRunner(int noOfThreads, int taskQueueSize) {
this.noOfThreads = noOfThreads;
this.taskQueueSize = taskQueueSize;
}
//You can pass any type of task(provided they are implementing Runnable)
public void submitTask(Runnable task) {
if(!started) {
init();
}
try {
taskQueue.put(task);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void shutdown() {
for(Worker worker : workerThreads){
worker.stopped = true;
}
}
private void init() {
this.taskQueue = new LinkedBlockingDeque<>(taskQueueSize);
this.workerThreads = new ArrayList<>(noOfThreads);
for(int i=0; i< noOfThreads; i++) {
Worker worker = new Worker();
workerThreads.add(worker);
worker.start();
}
}
private class Worker extends Thread {
private volatile boolean stopped;
public void run() {
if(!stopped) {
try {
taskQueue.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
class Task1 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
//Your implementation for the task of type 1
}
}
class Task2 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
//Your implementation for the task of type 2
}
}
class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
TaskRunner runner = new TaskRunner(3,5);
runner.submitTask(new Task1());
runner.submitTask(new Task2());
runner.shutdown();
}
}

Editable queue of tasks running in background thread

I know this question was answered many times, but I'm struggling to understand how it works.
So in my application the user must be able to select items which will be added to a queue (displayed in a ListView using an ObservableList<Task>) and each item needs to be processed sequentially by an ExecutorService.
Also that queue should be editable (change the order and remove items from the list).
private void handleItemClicked(MouseEvent event) {
if (event.getClickCount() == 2) {
File item = listView.getSelectionModel().getSelectedItem();
Task<Void> task = createTask(item);
facade.getTaskQueueList().add(task); // this list is bound to a ListView, where it can be edited
Future result = executor.submit(task);
// where executor is an ExecutorService of which type?
try {
result.get();
} catch (Exception e) {
// ...
}
}
}
Tried it with executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1) but I don't have control over the queue.
I read about ThreadPoolExecutor and queues, but I'm struggling to understand it as I'm quite new to Concurrency.
I need to run that method handleItemClicked in a background thread, so that the UI does not freeze, how can I do that the best way?
Summed up: How can I implement a queue of tasks, which is editable and sequentially processed by a background thread?
Please help me figure it out
EDIT
Using the SerialTaskQueue class from vanOekel helped me, now I want to bind the List of tasks to my ListView.
ListProperty<Runnable> listProperty = new SimpleListProperty<>();
listProperty.set(taskQueue.getTaskList()); // getTaskList() returns the LinkedList from SerialTaskQueue
queueListView.itemsProperty().bind(listProperty);
Obviously this doesn't work as it's expecting an ObservableList. There is an elegant way to do it?

The simplest solution I can think of is to maintain the task-list outside of the executor and use a callback to feed the executor the next task if it is available. Unfortunately, it involves synchronization on the task-list and an AtomicBoolean to indicate a task executing.
The callback is simply a Runnable that wraps the original task to run and then "calls back" to see if there is another task to execute, and if so, executes it using the (background) executor.
The synchronization is needed to keep the task-list in order and at a known state. The task-list can be modified by two threads at the same time: via the callback running in the executor's (background) thread and via handleItemClicked method executed via the UI foreground thread. This in turn means that it is never exactly known when the task-list is empty for example. To keep the task-list in order and at a known fixed state, synchronization of the task-list is needed.
This still leaves an ambiguous moment to decide when a task is ready for execution. This is where the AtomicBoolean comes in: a value set is always immediatly availabe and read by any other thread and the compareAndSet method will always ensure only one thread gets an "OK".
Combining the synchronization and the use of the AtomicBoolean allows the creation of one method with a "critical section" that can be called by both foreground- and background-threads at the same time to trigger the execution of a new task if possible. The code below is designed and setup in such a way that one such method (runNextTask) can exist. It is good practice to make the "critical section" in concurrent code as simple and explicit as possible (which, in turn, generally leads to an efficient "critical section").
import java.util.*;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;
public class SerialTaskQueue {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
// all operations on this list must be synchronized on the list itself.
SerialTaskQueue tq = new SerialTaskQueue(executor);
try {
// test running the tasks one by one
tq.add(new SleepSome(10L));
Thread.sleep(5L);
tq.add(new SleepSome(20L));
tq.add(new SleepSome(30L));
Thread.sleep(100L);
System.out.println("Queue size: " + tq.size()); // should be empty
tq.add(new SleepSome(10L));
Thread.sleep(100L);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
// all lookups and modifications to the list must be synchronized on the list.
private final List<Runnable> tasks = new LinkedList<Runnable>();
// atomic boolean used to ensure only 1 task is executed at any given time
private final AtomicBoolean executeNextTask = new AtomicBoolean(true);
private final Executor executor;
public SerialTaskQueue(Executor executor) {
this.executor = executor;
}
public void add(Runnable task) {
synchronized(tasks) { tasks.add(task); }
runNextTask();
}
private void runNextTask() {
// critical section that ensures one task is executed.
synchronized(tasks) {
if (!tasks.isEmpty()
&& executeNextTask.compareAndSet(true, false)) {
executor.execute(wrapTask(tasks.remove(0)));
}
}
}
private CallbackTask wrapTask(Runnable task) {
return new CallbackTask(task, new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
if (!executeNextTask.compareAndSet(false, true)) {
System.out.println("ERROR: programming error, the callback should always run in execute state.");
}
runNextTask();
}
});
}
public int size() {
synchronized(tasks) { return tasks.size(); }
}
public Runnable get(int index) {
synchronized(tasks) { return tasks.get(index); }
}
public Runnable remove(int index) {
synchronized(tasks) { return tasks.remove(index); }
}
// general callback-task, see https://stackoverflow.com/a/826283/3080094
static class CallbackTask implements Runnable {
private final Runnable task, callback;
public CallbackTask(Runnable task, Runnable callback) {
this.task = task;
this.callback = callback;
}
#Override public void run() {
try {
task.run();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
try {
callback.run();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
// task that just sleeps for a while
static class SleepSome implements Runnable {
static long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
private final long sleepTimeMs;
public SleepSome(long sleepTimeMs) {
this.sleepTimeMs = sleepTimeMs;
}
#Override public void run() {
try {
System.out.println(tdelta() + "Sleeping for " + sleepTimeMs + " ms.");
Thread.sleep(sleepTimeMs);
System.out.println(tdelta() + "Slept for " + sleepTimeMs + " ms.");
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private String tdelta() { return String.format("% 4d ", (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime)); }
}
}
Update: if groups of tasks need to be executed serial, have a look at the adapted implementation here.

Java using ExecutorService,CompletionService,BlockingQueue,and Observer correctly?

So, I'm pretty new to multi-threading and have been using this idea in all my programs lately. Before I start using it more I really want to make sure it is a correct efficient way to implement multi-threading using the Executor,CompletionService and a BlockingQueue plus an Observer. I'll provide example code below but let me first quickly explain how I think it works and maybe that will help.
The first thing I have is a BlockingQueue all tasks are added to this queue via an add(Task task) method. Upon creation of the class the run method is called with a while(true) calling take on the queue blocking until something gets added to the task queue.
Once something gets added to the queue inside the run() queue.take() returns the item on queue. Then I take that item and pass it to WorkerThread class that does stuff on it. That workerThread is added to the CompletionService pool which handles the waiting for a thread to finish.
Ok now comes the part i'm not sure is correct. I also have an inner class that implements runnable and is started when the class is initialized. Its job is to loop forever calling pool.take(). So, this essentially waits for one of the WorkerThreads to complete. I let the completion service handle this. Once the take() gets a value the inner class passes it to a notify observer method.
Is this okay implementation.? It concerns me a bit that there is the main classes run with a while(true) looping on task queue and an inner class also looping waiting on pool to receive a result from WorkerThread?
Here is an example implementation. What you think?
public class HttpSchedulerThreaded extends Observable implements Runnable {
private ArrayList<Object> list;//holds [0]=VULNINFO, [1]=REQUESTBUILDER OBJECT
protected static Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(HttpScheduler.class.getName());
private CompletionService<VulnInfo> pool;
private ExecutorService executor ;
private Thread responseWorkerThread;
private HttpSchedulerWorker schedulerWorker;
private boolean shouldRun = true;
private CountDownLatch doneSignal;
private String[] vulnClassesIgnoreRedirect;
private boolean followRedirects;
private boolean runJavascriptInResponse;
private boolean isSSL;
private int numThreadsInPool;
private BlockingQueue<VulnInfo> queue;
private boolean isRunning ;
public HttpSchedulerThreaded(int numThreads)
{
numThreadsInPool = numThreads;
executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numThreads);
doneSignal = new CountDownLatch(numThreads);
pool = new ExecutorCompletionService<VulnInfo>(executor);
schedulerWorker = new HttpSchedulerWorker();
responseWorkerThread = new Thread(schedulerWorker);
queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<VulnInfo>();
}
public HttpSchedulerThreaded()
{
numThreadsInPool = 1;
executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
doneSignal = new CountDownLatch(1);
pool = new ExecutorCompletionService<VulnInfo>(executor);
schedulerWorker = new HttpSchedulerWorker();
responseWorkerThread = new Thread(schedulerWorker);
queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<VulnInfo>();
}
public void setThreadCount(int numThreads)
{
if(!isRunning){
executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numThreads);
doneSignal = new CountDownLatch(numThreads);
pool = new ExecutorCompletionService<VulnInfo>(executor);
numThreadsInPool = numThreads;
}
}
public void start()
{
if(!isRunning){
responseWorkerThread.start();
new Thread(this).start();
isRunning = true;
}
}
public void add(VulnInfo info) {
queue.add(info);
}
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
while(shouldRun)
{
try {
VulnInfo info = queue.take();
Callable<VulnInfo> worker = new HttpSchedulerRequestSender(info,followRedirects,runJavascriptInResponse,vulnClassesIgnoreRedirect,doneSignal);
//System.out.println("submitting to pooler: " + info.getID());
pool.submit(worker);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
/**
* Inner class of proxy is a worker thread blocks until the pool has transactions complete as soon as they
* are complete it will send them to server for completion.
* #author Steve
*
*/
class HttpSchedulerWorker implements Runnable{
public void run() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
while(true)
{
VulnInfo vulnInfo = null;
try {
//System.out.println("taking finished request");
Future<VulnInfo> tmp = pool.take();
// Future<VulnInfo> tmp = pool.poll();
if(tmp != null)
vulnInfo = tmp.get();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
if(vulnInfo != null)
{
//System.out.println("updating all observers: " + vulnInfo.getID());
updateObservers(vulnInfo);
}
}
}
}

From my experience, your solution seems to be okay. I have three comments/suggestions:
Once you create a new thread of execution responseWorkerThread = new Thread(schedulerWorker) and responseWorkerThread.start(), you've essentially broken apart those two loops. This part looks okay. You do seem to be using the Executors API correctly, but it does look like you may need some more code for stopping the HttpScheduledWorker thread and for shutting down the ExecutionCompletionService as part of the HttpSchedulerThreaded class.
I'm not sure that your use of queue is really necessary. ExecutionCompletionService already uses a BlockingQueue to manage the tasks which are submitted to it.
Your "question" may be a better fit over at the beta Code Review site.

Wait until any of Future<T> is done

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();
}
}
}