Develop Reference

printing alternative output from 2 threads using semaphores

I am learning about the use of semaphores and multi threading in general but am kind of stuck. I have two threads printing G and H respectively and my objective is to alternate the outputs of each thread so that the output string is like this;
G
H
G
H
G
H
Each of the two classes has a layout similar to the one below
public class ClassA extends Thread implements Runnable{
Semaphore semaphore = null;
public ClassA(Semaphore semaphore){
this.semaphore = semaphore;
}
public void run() {
while(true)
{
try{
semaphore.acquire();
for(int i=0; i<1000; i++){
System.out.println("F");
}
Thread.currentThread();
Thread.sleep(100);
}catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.println(e.toString());
}
semaphore.release();
}
}
}
below is my main class
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(1);
ClassA clasA = new ClassA(semaphore);
Thread t1 = new Thread(clasA);
ClassB clasB = new ClassB(semaphore);
Thread t2 = new Thread(clasB);
t1.start();
t2.join();
t2.start();
The output I am getting is way too different from my expected result. can anyone help me please? did I misuse the semaphore? any help?

Semaphores can't help you solve such a task.
As far as I know, JVM doesn't promise any order in thread execution. It means that if you run several threads, one thread can execute several times in a row and have more processor time than any other. So, if you want your threads to execute in a particular order you can, for the simplest example, make a static boolean variable which will play a role of a switcher for your threads. Using wait() and notify() methods will be a better way, and Interface Condition will be the best way I suppose.
import java.io.IOException;
public class Solution {
public static boolean order;
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException, InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new ThreadPrint("G", true);
Thread t2 = new ThreadPrint("O", false);
t1.start();
t2.start();
t2.join();
System.out.println("Finish");
}
}
class ThreadPrint extends Thread {
private String line;
private boolean order;
public ThreadPrint(String line, boolean order) {
this.line = line;
this.order = order;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int z = 0;
while (true) {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
if (order == Solution.order) {
System.out.print(line + " ");
Solution.order = !order;
}
}
sleep(100);
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(e.toString());
}
}
}
}
BTW there can be another problem cause System.out is usually an Operation System buffer and your OS can output your messages in an order on its own.
P.S. You shouldn't inherit Thread and implement Runnable at the same time
public class ClassA extends Thread implements Runnable{
because Thread class already implements Runnable. You can choose only one way which will be better for your purposes.
You should start a thread then join to it not vice versa.
t1.start();
t2.join();
t2.start();

As others have pointed out, locks themselves do not enforce any order and on top of that, you cannot be certain when a thread starts (calling Thread.start() will start the thread at some point in the future, but this might take a while).
You can, however, use locks (like a Semaphore) to enforce an order. In this case, you can use two Semaphores to switch threads on and off (alternate). The two threads (or Runnables) do need to be aware of each other in advance - a more dynamic approach where threads can "join in" on the party would be more complex.
Below a runnable example class with repeatable results (always a good thing to have when testing multi-threading). I will leave it up to you to figure out why and how it works.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class AlternateSem implements Runnable {
static final CountDownLatch DONE_LATCH = new CountDownLatch(2);
static final int TIMEOUT_MS = 1000;
static final int MAX_LOOPS = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
try {
AlternateSem as1 = new AlternateSem(false);
AlternateSem as2 = new AlternateSem(true);
as1.setAlternate(as2);
as2.setAlternate(as1);
executor.execute(as1);
executor.execute(as2);
if (DONE_LATCH.await(TIMEOUT_MS, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
System.out.println();
System.out.println("Done");
} else {
System.out.println("Timeout");
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
final Semaphore sem = new Semaphore(0);
final boolean odd;
AlternateSem other;
public AlternateSem(boolean odd) {
this.odd = odd;
}
void setAlternate(AlternateSem other) { this.other = other; }
void release() { sem.release(); }
void acquire() throws Exception { sem.acquire(); }
#Override
public void run() {
if (odd) {
other.release();
}
int i = 0;
try {
while (i < MAX_LOOPS) {
i++;
other.acquire();
System.out.print(odd ? "G " : "H ");
release();
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
DONE_LATCH.countDown();
}
}

Commons IO 2.4, how control the state of FileAlterationListener and restart

We have a web app in Jboss 6.4 that has to check a Folder( new Files ), our idea was use Commons IO 2.4 with FileAlterationMonitor, like a backup we wanted to control the monitor.. if is working properly or not,
For this.. we created a TimerTask to control if the thread it's running if not, create another observer to continue with the work.
Our problem:
Now in our Test's we provoked a Exception to kill the Observer and detect that if he is not working and restart again, but We don't know how we have to do this with in FileAlterationMonitor, FileAlterationObserver or in FileAlterationListener, and how?
public class App {
private static final String FOLDER ="/Folder";
private static final FileAlterationMonitor monitor = new FileAlterationMonitor(1000);
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final File directory = new File(FOLDER);
FileAlterationObserver fao = new FileAlterationObserver(directory);
fao.addListener(new FileAlterationListenerImpl());
monitor.addObserver(fao);
monitor.start();
TimerTask task = new TimerTask() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Monitor Controler");
ThreadGroup currentGroup = Thread.currentThread().getThreadGroup();
int noThreads = currentGroup.activeCount();
Thread[] lstThreads = new Thread[noThreads];
currentGroup.enumerate(lstThreads);
for (int i = 0; i < noThreads; i++) {
System.out.println("Thread No:" + i + " = "+ lstThreads[i].getName());
System.out.println(lstThreads[i].getState().toString());
System.out.println(lstThreads[i].isInterrupted());
System.out.println(lstThreads[i].isAlive());
}
for (FileAlterationObserver o :monitor.getObservers()) {
String obName = o.toString();
String obDir = o.getDirectory().toString();
for(FileAlterationListener l :o.getListeners()){
String listener = l.toString();
}
}
};
Timer timer = new Timer();
long delay = 0;
long intevalPeriod = 1 * 1000;
// schedules the task to be run in an interval
timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(task, delay, intevalPeriod);
}
}
My Solution:
public class App {
private static final String FOLDER = "/Folder/";
private static final FileAlterationMonitor monitor = new FileAlterationMonitor(1000);
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final File directory = new File(FOLDER);
FileAlterationObserver fao = new FileAlterationObserver(directory);
fao.addListener(new FileAlterationListenerImpl());
monitor.addObserver(fao);
monitor.start();
TimerTask task = new TimerTask() {
#Override
public void run() {
ThreadGroup currentGroup = Thread.currentThread().getThreadGroup();
int noThreads = currentGroup.activeCount();
Thread[] lstThreads = new Thread[noThreads];
currentGroup.enumerate(lstThreads);
boolean isDead = true;
for (int i = 0; i < noThreads; i++) {
// System.out.println("Thread No:" + i + " = "+ lstThreads[i].getName());
// System.out.println("getState: "+lstThreads[i].getState().toString());
// System.out.println("isInterrupted: "+ lstThreads[i].isInterrupted());
// System.out.println("isAlive: "+lstThreads[i].isAlive());
if(lstThreads[i].getName().equals("monitorThread"))
{
isDead= false;
}
}
if(isDead){
try {
monitor.stop();
monitor.start();
isDead = false;
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
};
Timer timer = new Timer();
long delay = 0;
long intevalPeriod = 1 * 1000;
timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(task, delay, intevalPeriod);
}
}
In my FileAlterationListenerImpl :
#Override
public void onStart(final FileAlterationObserver observer) {
Thread.currentThread().setName("monitorThread");
Is the only place I could set the name of the Thread..

You can use setThreadFactory() method on FileAlterationMonitor to set a custom thread factory. As to know about the state of the thread on which the monitor is running we would need to access it's instance.
So create a custom ThreadFactory class as below.
class SimpleThreadFactory implements ThreadFactory {
private Thread monitorThread;
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
Thread thread = new Thread(r);
if( r instanceof FileAlterationMonitor) {
monitorThread = thread;
}
return thread;
}
public boolean isMonitorThreadAlive() {
boolean isAlive = false;
if(monitorThread != null) {
isAlive = monitorThread.isAlive();
}
return isAlive;
}
}
Now use the setThreadFactory() on FileAlterationMonitor to set the above custom thread factory.
Then you can use custom isMonitorThreadAlive() method to check if it's alive.
Another crude but probably easier way would be to give monitor thread a name and use the top ThreadGroup to find the thread by given name (and the use isAlive() on it).
Following is a simple sample
#Edit: Following can not be used as FileAlterationMonitor is a final class as pointed out by #JOANA_Batista
FileAlterationMonitor monitor = new FileAlterationMonitor(directory) {
#Override
public void run () {
//setting name
Thread.currentThread().setName("monitorThread");
this.run();
}
}
Since we can not override the FileAlterationMonitor we have to find some other way to change the monitor thread name. We can set use FileAlterationListener.onStart().
As this method is called on FileAlterationObserver.checkAndNotify() which is called in the FileAlterationMonitor.run()
FileAlterationMonitor.run()
public void run() {
while (running) {
for (FileAlterationObserver observer : observers) {
observer.checkAndNotify();
...
FileAlterationObserver.checkAndNotify()
public void checkAndNotify() {
/* fire onStart() */
for (FileAlterationListener listener : listeners) {
listener.onStart(this);
}
...
It all happens on the same monitor thread that's why following code should set the monitor thread name in FileAlterationListener.onStart()
#Override
void onStart(final FileAlterationObserver observer) {
Thread.currentThread().setName("monitorThread");
...
}
Note: You can call stop() method on the FileAlterationMonitor to stop() the thread, however to start it again you have to add the new FileAlterationObserver again as stop method destroys the observers. This should in effect restart the monitor thread.
public synchronized void stop(long stopInterval) throws Exception {
if (running == false) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Monitor is not running");
}
running = false;
try {
thread.join(stopInterval);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
/***** Observers are destroyed here ****/
for (FileAlterationObserver observer : observers) {
observer.destroy();
}
}
Probably it's better to create everything (Listener, Monitor and Obsever) again after calling stop, as there's not much (only Monitor object) to reuse.

Sleeping threads in JAVA

I am currently working on a project where I am to have essentially 10 threads that are "sleeping". At random one of these 10 threads is to "wake up" and start doing some work. I just want to see if I am headed in the right direction. So should I just create each instance of the thread for instance.
Thread thread0 = new Thread(new doWork());
...
Thread thread9 = new Thread(new doWork());
and just not start them and then when they are to "wake" just call the start() method on the particular thread..
or should I start each thread but have them wait() until I call the notify() method?
or should I start the thread and use sleep() and then call the interrupt() method?
Which approach seems to be better and why?
Any insight is greatly appreciated.
edit Will this be acceptable??
import java.util.Random;
public class Client {
private static Thread [] clients = new Thread[10];
public static void main(String[] args){
createClients();
randomWake();
}// end main()
static void createClients(){
Thread client0 = new Thread(new ClientThread(0));
clients[0] = client0;
Thread client1 = new Thread(new ClientThread(1));
clients[1] = client1;
Thread client2 = new Thread(new ClientThread(2));
clients[2] = client2;
Thread client3 = new Thread(new ClientThread(3));
clients[3] = client3;
Thread client4 = new Thread(new ClientThread(4));
clients[4] = client4;
Thread client5 = new Thread(new ClientThread(5));
clients[5] = client5;
Thread client6 = new Thread(new ClientThread(6));
clients[6] = client6;
Thread client7 = new Thread(new ClientThread(7));
clients[7] = client7;
Thread client8 = new Thread(new ClientThread(8));
clients[8] = client8;
Thread client9 = new Thread(new ClientThread(9));
clients[9] = client9;
for(int i = 0; i < clients.length; i++)
clients[i].start();
}// end createClients()
static void randomWake(){
Random rand = new Random();
int randomNumber = rand.nextInt(10);
clients[randomNumber].interrupt();
}// end randomWake()
static class ClientThread implements Runnable{
private int clientNumber;
public ClientThread(int clientNumber){
this.clientNumber = clientNumber;
}// end ClientThread(int clientNumber)
public void run(){
while(!Thread.interrupted()){}
System.out.println("Client " + clientNumber + " is awake!");
}// end run()
}// end class ClientThread
}// end class Client

In case there is a maximum amount of sleep time
You probably will need to implement the following Thread class:
public class DoWork extends Thread {
public void run () {
while(true) {
Thread.Sleep((int) Math.floor(Math.random()*10000));
//do some work
}
}
}
Where 10000 is the maximum time in milliseconds a thread should sleep.
In case there is no maximum amount of sleep time
You probably will need to implement the following Thread class:
public class DoWork extends Thread {
public void run () {
while(true) {
Thread.Sleep(1);
if(Math.random() < 0.005d) {
//do some work
}
}
}
}
where 0.005 is the probability of running the method a certain millisecond.
notify and wait are used to implement Semaphores: this are objects that prevent two threads to manipulate the same object at the same time (since some objects could end up in an illegal state).

How about using semaphores?
class DoWork extends Runnable {
private final Semaphore semaphore;
DoWork(Semaphore semaphore) {
this.semaphore = semaphore;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
semaphore.acquire();
//do some work
}
}
}
The main program can create an array of Semaphores, and an equal number of Threads running DoWork instances, so that each DoWork instance has its own semaphore. Each time the main program calls sema[i].release(), The run() method of the corresponding DoWork instance will "do some work" and then go back to waiting.

It doesn't make much sense your answer, so not sure what you really want to achieve. But for what you describe you should put all threads waiting on the same lock and just notify the lock (it will awake only one randomly)
But as that doesn't make much sense, I guess you want to achieve something different.
Check this question regarding sleep vs wait: Difference between wait() and sleep()

Check this one. This is how I would solve it if I were not to use ThreadPooling (which is very correct as the others have said) and so that I can see how wait(),notify() and Thread.sleep() work. Checking google you will see (e.g. Thread.sleep and object.wait) that the mainly wait() and notify() are used for communication between threads and Thread.sleep is used so that you can pause your program.
-Part of this answer is based on this: http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-concurrency/thread-signaling.html#missedsignals. You can check in the code to see the steps that you need to take (comment out some parts of the code) in order to make your program hang, so that you realize how to work with missed signals. The iterations needed for your program to hang are not fixed.
-The programm will run forever. You will need to work on it a bit in order to fix that.
Main
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Manager mgr = new Manager("manager");
mgr.start();
}
}
Manager
public class Manager extends Thread
{
private final Object lock = new Object();
private boolean wasSignalled = false;
private DoWork[] workThreads = new DoWork[5];
public Manager(String name){
super(name);
workThreads[0] = new DoWork(this,"work 0");
workThreads[1] = new DoWork(this,"work 1");
workThreads[2] = new DoWork(this,"work 2");
workThreads[3] = new DoWork(this,"work 3");
workThreads[4] = new DoWork(this,"work 4");
}
public void wakeUP()
{
synchronized (this.lock) {
wasSignalled = true;
this.lock.notify();
}
}
public void pauseAndWait()
{
synchronized (this.lock) {
if(!wasSignalled)
{
try {
this.lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
//clear signal and continue running.
wasSignalled = false;
}
}
public void run ()
{
int i=0;
while(true)
{
i++;
System.out.println(" manager ...: "+i+" ");
int choose = 0 + (int)(Math.random() * ((4 - 0) + 1));
//choose=0; for debugginng
if(!workThreads[choose].isAlive()){
workThreads[choose].start();
}
else{
workThreads[choose].wakeUP();
}
//wait to be notified by DoWork thread when its job
//is done
pauseAndWait();
}
}
}
DoWork
public class DoWork extends Thread
{
private final Object lock = new Object();
private boolean wasSignalled = false;
private Manager managerThread;
public DoWork(Manager managerThread,String name){
super(name);
this.managerThread=managerThread;
}
public void wakeUP()
{
synchronized (this.lock) {
//check what happens without wasSignalled flag
//step #1: comment out wasSignalled = true;
wasSignalled = true;
this.lock.notify();
}
}
public void pauseAndWait()
{
synchronized (this.lock) {
//check what happens without wasSignalled flag
//step #2: comment out the if block
if(!wasSignalled)
{
try {
this.lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
//check what happens without wasSignalled flag
//step #3: comment out wasSignalled = false;
//clear signal and continue running.
wasSignalled = false;
}
}
public void run ()
{
int i=0;
while(true)
{
i++;
try {
System.out.print(this.getName()+" going to sleep ...: "+i+" ");
//check what happens without wasSignalled flag
//step #4: put sleep time to Thread.sleep(0);
//simulate worker thread job
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println(" woke up ... ");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(" worker thread: job simulation error:"+e);
}
//if worker thread job simulation is done (sleep for 4 times)
//then suspend thread and wait to be awaken again
if(i>4)
{
System.out.println(this.getName()+" notifying main ...: "+i+" \n");
i=0;
managerThread.wakeUP();
// thread does not get destroyed, it stays in memory and when the manager
// thread calls it again it will wake up do its job again
pauseAndWait();
}
}
}
}

Updating UI-thread with handler

I have scoured the web to find definite examples of this but so far couldn't find one which I could have applied to my project.
I'm trying to create a worker-thread which is run every 100ms. It then should update UI with results. After some research I decided that I probably should use Handlers to manage the UI-updating. I came to this solution:
My activity's Handler:
private final Handler handler = new Handler() {
public void handleMessage(Message msg) {
String aResponse = msg.getData().getString("message");
if ((null != aResponse)) {
// ALERT MESSAGE
Log.v("udppacket", "UDP message!");
if (msg.obj != null)
{
ManagerUdpPacket p = (ManagerUdpPacket) msg.obj;
operatorListFragment.updateContent((int) p.getOperationTime());
}
}
else
{
}
}
};
My other class which has the worker-thread:
public class ManagerUdpReceiver
{
private int minPort = 1234;
private int maxPort = 1240;
private ArrayList<PortListener> portList;
private Handler handler;
private Thread portThread;
private int queryInterval = 100;
private boolean stop = false;
public ManagerUdpReceiver(int minport, int maxport, Handler handler, int queryInterval)
{
minPort = minport;
maxPort = maxport;
this.handler = handler;
this.queryInterval = queryInterval;
//create port listeners from given range and start their threads
start();
}
private void start()
{
stop = false;
// Create Inner Thread Class
portThread = new Thread(new Runnable()
{
// After call for background.start this run method call
public void run()
{
if (portList == null)
{
portList = new ArrayList<PortListener>();
for (int i = minPort; i < maxPort; i++)
{
portList.add(new PortListener(i));
}
}
if (!stop)
{
ManagerUdpPacket p = portList.get(0).receive();
threadMsg("moi", p);
//mHandler.postDelayed(this, queryInterval);
}
else
{
//stop execution and close ports
for (int i = 0; i < portList.size(); i++)
{
portList.get(i).close();
}
}
}
//send message to the handler
private void threadMsg(String msg, ManagerUdpPacket p)
{
if (!msg.equals(null) && !msg.equals(""))
{
Message msgObj = handler.obtainMessage();
//msgObj.obj = p;
Bundle b = new Bundle();
b.putString("message", msg);
msgObj.setData(b);
handler.sendMessage(msgObj);
}
}
});
// Start Thread
portThread.start();
}
public void close()
{
stop = true;
}
}
When I run the program I get exception about running networking code in UI-thread. Now, the worker-thread should receive and process UDP-packets. However, the code for that is inside of the portThread thread! I suppose that handler.postDelayed(this, queryInterval); which I use to loop the thread in every 100ms somehow causes the next cycle to be run in UI-thread instead of my worker-thread.
So my question is what I'm doing wrong here and how to fix it? Or alternatively, how to get the looping work correctly in every 100ms? I'm also not sure where to place the Handler, since I have seen examples where it is inside Activity and inside the worker-thread.

Ok, I think I got it working though I'm not satisfied with it and so leaving this unchecked.
Basically I ended up using TimerTask to run my code every 100ms and notifying UI-thread via Handler. I'm not really sure if this is best choice (I have heard that Timers aren't that great) but seems to work:
dataStreamTimer = new Timer();
dataStreamTask = new TimerTask()
{
public void run()
{
if (portList == null)
{
portList = new ArrayList<PortListener>();
for (int i = minPort; i < maxPort; i++)
{
portList.add(new PortListener(i));
}
}
if (!stop)
{
ManagerUdpPacket p = portList.get(0).receive();
threadMsg("moi", p);
//handler.postDelayed(this, queryInterval);
//stop thread until next query
try {
synchronized(this){
this.wait(queryInterval);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Log.e("ERR", "InterruptedException in TimerTask.run");
}
}
else
{
//execution has been stopped, clear data:
//stop execution and close ports
for (int i = 0; i < portList.size(); i++)
{
portList.get(i).close();
}
}
}

dont really understand purpose of handlers. Why you dont just prepare data on backround thread and than use myActivity.runOnUIThread() to run your updateContent() method? Maybe p.getOperationTime() is considered network operation, try to save this value to some variable in background thread and than publish it by UI thread.

how to graceful stop java threads in sequence?

I have started threads in sequence but i don't know how to stop them in reverse sequence.
For example:
they are starting like this: A->B->C->D
and I want them to stop: D->C->B->A
I don't know how to stop threads at all and not even in this order.
I appreciate any help or advice.
import java.util.*;
class Service extends Thread
{
private RobotController controller;
private String robotID;
private byte[] lock;
public Service(RobotController cntrl, String id)
{
controller = cntrl;
robotID = id;
}
public byte[] getLock() { return lock;}
public void run()
{
lock = new byte[0];
synchronized(lock)
{
byte[] data;
while ((data = controller.getData()) == null)
{
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {}
}
System.out.println("Robot " + robotID + " Working");
}
}
}
class RobotController
{
private byte[] robotData;
private Vector threadList = new Vector();
private Service thread_A;
private Service thread_B;
private Service thread_C;
private Service thread_D;
private volatile boolean done;
public void setup(){
thread_A = new Service(this, "A");
thread_B = new Service(this, "B");
thread_C = new Service(this, "C");
thread_D = new Service(this, "D");
threadList.addElement(thread_A);
threadList.addElement(thread_B);
threadList.addElement(thread_C);
threadList.addElement(thread_D);
thread_A.start();
thread_B.start();
thread_C.start();
thread_D.start();
start();
stop();
}
public void start()
{
System.out.println("Thread starts");
{
for (int i=0; i <= 3; i++)
{
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
}catch (InterruptedException ie){}
putData(new byte[10]);
Service rbot = (Service)threadList.elementAt(i);
byte[] robotLock = rbot.getLock();
synchronized(robotLock) {
robotLock.notify();
}
}
}
}
public void stop()
{
{
}
}
public synchronized byte[] getData()
{
if (robotData != null)
{
byte[] d = new byte[robotData.length];
System.arraycopy(robotData, 0, d, 0, robotData.length);
robotData = null;
return d;
}
return null;
}
public void putData(byte[] d) { robotData = d;}
public static void main(String args[])
{
RobotController controller = new RobotController();
controller.setup();
}
}

I'll usually include something like a cancel() method in my threads if I want to explicitly terminate them.
class Service extends Thread {
private volatile boolean cancel = false;
public void cancel() {
cancel = true;
}
public void run() {
...
while (!cancel && (data = controller.getData()) == null) {
...
}
}
}
Keep your threads in a stack as mre suggests, then pop through the stack and call cancel and then interrupt on each thread.

I have started threads in sequence but i don't know how to stop them in reverse sequence.
This is difficult to do. There are ways you can stop a thread either by setting a volatile shutdown boolean or interrupting them, but none of these mechanisms are guaranteed to stop a thread immediately.
You certainly can keep a List<Thread> when you build them, call Collections.reverse(threadList) and then call thread.interrupt() on each one in turn. If you must have them finish in order then you should interrupt() them and then join them. Something like:
Collections.reverse(threadList);
for (Thread thread : threadList) {
thread.interrupt();
thread.join();
}
Then each thread should be doing something like:
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
...
}
Note that if you are running Thread.sleep(...) or other methods that throw InterruptedException, you'll need to re-enable the interrupt flag:
try {
Thread.sleep(...);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// by convention if InterruptedException thrown, interrupt flag is cleared
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
...
}

Have each thread keep a reference to the next thread to be started. Then each thread can periodically check to see if the thread is still alive. If not, that thread should terminate. When it does, the previous thread will notice and terminate, and so on up the chain.
abstract class ChainThread extends Thread {
private final Thread next;
ChainThread(Thread next) { this.next = next; }
#Override
public final void run() {
next.start();
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() && next.isAlive()) {
do();
}
}
abstract void do();
}

If I read the Service code correctly, it waits until there's data to execute on, then finishes. So you don't really need an explicit stop or cancel type signal, the threads will terminate themselves after they do work.
To enforce ordering of shutdown, you could make each Service aware of the previous Service, and then call previousService.join(). Assuming no InterruptedExceptions are thrown, they will then shutdown in order after seeing that the controller has data.
Create the Services this way:
Service serviceA = new Service(controller, "A", null);
Service serviceB = new Service(controller, "B", serviceA);
Service serviceC = new Service(controller, "C", serviceB);
Service serviceD = new Service(controller, "D", serviceC);
and the implementation is edited to exit only after dependent Services are complete:
private final RobotController controller;
private final String robotID;
private byte[] lock;
private final Service dependentService;
public Service(RobotController cntrl, String id, Service dependentService) {
controller = cntrl;
robotID = id;
this.dependentService = dependentService;
}
public byte[] getLock() {
return lock;
}
#Override
public void run() {
lock = new byte[0];
synchronized (lock) {
byte[] data;
while ((data = controller.getData()) == null) {
try {
lock.wait();
}
catch (InterruptedException ie) {
}
}
System.out.println("Robot " + robotID + " Working");
}
if (dependentService != null) {
try {
dependentService.join();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
this.interrupt();
}
}
}