Below is my program. Always the thread 0 gets the printer, other threads do not get it.
There is one printer object, and i want multiple job threads to use the printer. How to make this program work so that all jobs get the printer. For me the code flow seems to be fine. Am synchronizing on a single printer object. Please help.
package classesTesting;
public class PrinterQueue {
final static Printer printer = new Printer();;
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
System.out.println("In Main");
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
new Thread(new Jobs(), "Thread - " + i).start();
System.out.println("started " + i + " thread");
}
}
}
class Printer {
private boolean isUsed;
Printer() {
this.isUsed = false;
}
public void setUsed(boolean used) {
this.isUsed = used;
}
public boolean isUsed() {
return this.isUsed;
}
}
class Jobs implements Runnable {
String name;
boolean isDataAvailble;
Jobs() {
this.isDataAvailble = true;
}
public void setNoData(boolean noData) {
this.isDataAvailble = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (isDataAvailble) {
if (PrinterQueue.printer.isUsed()) {
try {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread()
+ "WAITING FOR PRINTER");
synchronized (PrinterQueue.printer) {
PrinterQueue.printer.wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
} else {
synchronized (PrinterQueue.printer) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread() + "GOT PRINTER");
PrinterQueue.printer.setUsed(true);
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
PrinterQueue.printer.setUsed(false);
PrinterQueue.printer.notify();
}
}
}
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Hi, I have revised my program for getting lock first then condition checking. Even then the thread 0 always gets the printer. Other threads starve.
Revised program:
package classesTesting;
public class PrinterQueue {
static Printer printer;
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
System.out.println("In Main");
printer = new Printer();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Jobs j1 = new Jobs();
j1.setPrinter(printer);
Thread t1 = new Thread(j1, "Thread - " + i);
t1.start();
System.out.println("started " + i + " thread");
}
}
}
class Printer {
private boolean isUsed;
Printer() {
this.isUsed = false;
}
public void setUsed(boolean used) {
this.isUsed = used;
}
public boolean isUsed() {
return this.isUsed;
}
}
class Jobs implements Runnable {
String name;
Printer printer;
public Printer getPrinter() {
return printer;
}
public void setPrinter(Printer printer) {
this.printer = printer;
}
boolean isDataAvailble;
Jobs() {
this.isDataAvailble = true;
}
public void setNoData(boolean noData) {
this.isDataAvailble = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (isDataAvailble) {
synchronized (PrinterQueue.printer) {
if (this.printer.isUsed()) {
try {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread()
+ "WAITING FOR PRINTER");
PrinterQueue.printer.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
else {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread() + "GOT PRINTER");
PrinterQueue.printer.setUsed(true);
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
PrinterQueue.printer.setUsed(false);
PrinterQueue.printer.notify();
}
}
}
}
}
If you want the resource to be available for all the threads in fair manner, it's much better to use ReentrantLock with fair = true parameter. Also never rely on non-volatile variables changed in concurrent way. Here's the fixed code:
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class PrinterQueue {
static Printer printer;
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("In Main");
printer = new Printer();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
// I added printer constructor parameter to pass the same printer
// to all the Jobs
new Thread(new Jobs(printer), "Thread - " + i).start();
System.out.println("started " + i + " thread");
}
}
}
class Printer {
// internally printer holds a fair ReentrantLock
Lock lock = new ReentrantLock(true);
// call this to get the printer
public void acquire() {
lock.lock();
}
// call this to release the printer, so it's available for other threads
public void release() {
lock.unlock();
}
}
class Jobs implements Runnable {
// Declare isDataAvailble as volatile as you're going to change it from another thread
volatile boolean isDataAvailble;
private final Printer printer;
// constructor now takes the printer argument
Jobs(Printer printer) {
this.isDataAvailble = true;
this.printer = printer;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (isDataAvailble) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread()
+ "Trying to get the printer");
// get the printer
this.printer.acquire();
try {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread()
+ "Printer acquired!");
// use it
Thread.sleep(3000);
} finally {
// Release the printer. Better to do it in finally block
// so you will release it even if some unexpected exception occurs
this.printer.release();
}
}
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
I think what you are looking for is a Condition. You first need to obtain a lock, then you can check a condition. While that condition hold the thread will sleep. When the condition no longer holds the sleeping thread (or next sleeping thread) is woken up to check the condition again.
You can read more about the Condition object here: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/locks/Condition.html
It should look like this:
Acquire the printer:
synchronized (PrinterQueue.printer) {
while (PrinterQueue.printer.isUsed()) {
try {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread()
+ "WAITING FOR PRINTER");
PrinterQueue.printer.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread() + "GOT PRINTER");
PrinterQueue.printer.setUsed(true);
}
Use the printer, dummied as per your code by Thread.sleep():
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Release the printer:
synchronized (PrinterQueue.printer) {
PrinterQueue.printer.setUsed(false);
PrinterQueue.printer.notifyAll();
}
You need to use while rather than if, and you need to test the same object you're synchronized on. And use notifyAll() rather than notify().
But it isn't clear to me that you need any of this, just a synchronized block.
Related
I have an object A on which I'm updating some data every second and other objects B and C which want to use the data only once per update.
Every object work in parallel.
How can I make B and C wait for the update in A ?
I've seen some similar questions but their responses didn't help me.
I've seen that I could use a "synchronized" bloc on an object D, but they just put the bloc without telling how to instanciate or share that object.
The following code is what I use for my tests. I managed to get them working in parallel but I'm stuck with the suspending part.
This is the class for A
public class Master{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Worker B = new Worker("B");
B.start();
Worker C = new Worker("C");
C.start();
while(true)
{
Thread.sleep(1000);
// update data
// notify every thread waiting that they can resume
}
}
}
This is the class used for B and C
public class Worker extends Thread
{
Worker(String name)
{
super("Worker " + name);
}
public void run()
{
int i = 0;
while(!this.isInterrupted())
{
// wait for A to update data
System.out.println(i);
i++;
}
System.out.println("thread interrupted");
}
}
From there, what do I need to add for the purpose I'm looking for ?
To do it very low level, only using the lang APIs, you should use wait/notifyAll.
Not that I used Main.class as an arbitrary object to synchronize
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SharedData sharedData = new SharedData();
Worker w1 = new Worker("Worker 1", sharedData);
Worker w2 = new Worker("Worker 2", sharedData);
w1.start();
w2.start();
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
sharedData.increase();;
System.out.println("Master: " + sharedData.value());
synchronized (Main.class) {
Main.class.notifyAll();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class SharedData {
private int data = 0;
public void increase () {
data++;
}
public int value() {
return data;
}
}
class Worker extends Thread {
private String workerName;
private SharedData sharedData;
public Worker(String workerName, SharedData sharedData) {
super();
this.workerName = workerName;
this.sharedData = sharedData;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
synchronized (Main.class) {
Main.class.wait();
}
System.out.println(workerName + ": " + sharedData.value());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Not sure if I understand you correctly, but this might be worth checking out for you:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/CountDownLatch.html
Why use threads at all? Why not just do this?
public class Master {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Worker B = new Worker("B");
Worker C = new Worker("C");
while(true) {
Thread.sleep(1000);
updateData();
B.doWork();
C.doWork();
}
}
}
public class Worker
{
public void doWork() {
System.out.println(i);
i++;
}
private int i = 0;
}
I'm taking one Integer variable and sharing with two threads. One thread should print even numbers and one thread should print odd number sequentially.
But notify() throwing IllegalMonitorStateException.
package mywaitnotifytest;
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Integer i=0;
Even even = new Even(i);
even.setName("EvenThread");
Odd odd = new Odd(i);
odd.setName("OddThread");
even.start();
odd.start();
}
}
class Even extends Thread{
Integer var;
Even(Integer var){
this.var=var;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
synchronized (var) {
if(var%2==0){
try {
var.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
var++;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" "+var);
var.notify();
}
}
}
}
class Odd extends Thread{
Integer var;
Odd(Integer var){
this.var=var;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
synchronized (var) {
if(var%2!=0){
try {
var.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
var++;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" "+var);
var.notify();
}
}
}
}
And the output is :
OddThread 1
Exception in thread "OddThread" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at mywaitnotifytest.Odd.run(App.java:67)
I think this is sufficiently different to the usual answer to give another one.
In this case you are using synchronized. When you apply a lock it is on a object not a reference.
synchronized (var) {
This locks the object var references, not on var as a field.
var++;
This replaces the object var points to. It is the same as
var = Integer.valueOf(var.intValue() + 1);
Note: Integer and indeed all the primitive wrappers are Immutable. When you perform any operation on them you are actually unboxing, calculating using the primitive value and re-boxing the object. It is possible to get the same object back if it is pooled. e.g.
Integer i = 10;
i += 0; // gives back the same object.
However, if the object is not pooled
Double d = 10;
d += 0; // creates a new object.
var.notify();
Attempts the call notify on the new object, not the one which was locked.
You shouldn't attempt to lock a field which you mutate. It won't do what it appears to do. You also shouldn't lock on a pooled object. In this case you could have another thread using the same Integer for an unrelated purpose and notify() will wake up an unrelated thread.
To use wait/notify correctly, you should
notify() or notifyAll() after a state change in another shared field.
you should use a while loop for wait() to check the state change.
If you don't do this
notify can be lost if another thread is not waiting.
wait can wake spuriously, even when no notify was called.
For the above requirement what is the edit suggested in the code? How do i share the same object for multiple threads?
public class PingPong implements Runnable {
static class Shared { int num; }
private final Shared var;
private final int bit;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Shared var = new Shared();
new Thread(new PingPong(var, 0), "EvenThread").start();
new Thread(new PingPong(var, 1), "OddThread").start();
}
PingPong(Shared var, int bit) {
this.var = var;
this.bit = bit;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
String name = Thread.currentThread().getName();
while (true) {
synchronized (var) {
while (var.num % 2 == bit)
var.wait();
var.num++;
System.out.println(name + " " + var.num);
var.notify();
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted");
}
}
}
Instead of using Integer wrapper class,I created my own class and now It works fine.
package mywaitnotifytest;
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyInt i = new MyInt(0);
Even even = new Even(i);
even.setName("EvenThread");
Odd odd = new Odd(i);
odd.setName("OddThread");
even.start();
odd.start();
}
}
class Even extends Thread {
MyInt var;
Even(MyInt var) {
this.var = var;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e1.printStackTrace();
}
synchronized (var) {
if (var.i % 2 == 0) {
try {
var.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
var.i++;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + var.i);
var.notify();
}
}
}
}
class Odd extends Thread {
MyInt var;
Odd(MyInt var) {
this.var = var;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e1.printStackTrace();
}
synchronized (var) {
if (var.i % 2 != 0) {
try {
var.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
var.i++;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + var.i);
var.notify();
}
}
}
}
class MyInt {
int i = 0;
public MyInt(int i) {
super();
this.i = i;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
return "" + i;
}
}
I am trying to do it using two threads like below. Can someone point the obvious mistake I am doing here?
public class OddEven {
public static boolean available = false;
public static Queue<Integer> queue = new LinkedList<Integer>();
static Thread threadEven = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
printEven();
}
public synchronized void printEven() {
while (!available) {
try {
wait();
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
System.out.println(queue.remove());
available = false;
notifyAll();
}
};
static Thread threadOdd = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
printOdd();
}
public synchronized void printOdd () {
while (available) {
try {
wait();
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
System.out.println(queue.remove());
available = true;
notifyAll();
}
};
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n = 20;
for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) {
queue.add(i);
}
threadOdd.start();
threadEven.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(60000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
try {
threadOdd.join();
threadEven.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
But this program is only printing 1 and quitting. After printing 1 the available should be true and printEven should wake up, print and set available to false. I don't understand what is going wrong here? I saw other solutions but want to know why my solution is not working.
Putting synchronized on an instance method means that the thread calling that method has to acquire the lock on that instance; public void synchronized printOdd() is syntax sugar for
public void printOdd() {
synchronized(this) {
...
}
}
where this is different for each instance, since ThreadOdd and threadEven are two different objects and each one uses its own lock. The methods notifyAll and wait are called on the object that is being used as the lock. When one thread waits it never gets notified because the notification only applies to other threads waiting on the same lock as the notifying thread.
Problem description : -
Step 1: Take input FILE_NAME from user at main thread.
Step 2: Perform 10 operations on that file (i.e count chars, count lines etc.. ), and all those 10 operations must be in septate threads. It means there must be 10 child threads.
Step 3: Main thread waits until all those child threads completed.
Step 4: Print result.
What I did :-
I did a sample code with 3 threads. I don't want file operation code from your side.
public class ThreadTest {
// This is object to synchronize on.
private static final Object waitObject = ThreadTest.class;
// Your boolean.
private static boolean boolValue = false;
public final Result result = new Result();
public static void main(String[] args) {
final ThreadTest mytest = new ThreadTest();
System.out.println("main started");
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Inside thread");
//Int initialiser
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Setting integer value");
mytest.result.setIntValue(346635);
System.out.println("Integer value seted");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
//String initialiser
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Setting string value");
mytest.result.setStringValue("Hello hi");
System.out.println("String value seted");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
//Boolean initialiser
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Setting boolean value");
mytest.result.setBoolValue(true);
System.out.println("Boolean value seted");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
System.out.println("Thread is finished");
//Notify to main thread
synchronized (ThreadTest.waitObject) {
ThreadTest.boolValue = true;
ThreadTest.waitObject.notifyAll();
}
}
}).start();
try {
synchronized (ThreadTest.waitObject) {
while (!ThreadTest.boolValue) {
ThreadTest.waitObject.wait();
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("main finished");
System.out.println("Result is : " + mytest.result.toString());
}
}
Problem :-
My above code is not giving correct answer. How can I do that?
Alternate solutions:
CountDownLatch class does the same. But I don't want to use that class.
I looked this similar solution and I want to use methods of Thread only.
You can do:
Thread t = new Thread() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("text");
// other complex code
}
};
t.start();
t.join();
This way you will wait until the thread finishes and just then continue. You can join multiple threads:
for (Thread thread : threads) {
thread.join();
}
I would recommend looking at the Executors framework first, and then look into the CompletionService.
Then you can write something like this:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(maxThreadsToUse);
CompletionService completion = new ExecutorCompletionService(executor);
for (each sub task) {
completion.submit(new SomeTaskYouCreate())
}
// wait for all tasks to complete.
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfSubTasks; ++i) {
completion.take(); // will block until the next sub task has completed.
}
executor.shutdown();
In Java 8 a far better approach is to use parallelStream()
Note: it is far easier to see exactly what these background tasks are doing.
public static void main(String[] args) {
Stream.<Runnable>of(
() -> mytest.result.setIntValue(346635),
() -> mytest.result.setStringValue("Hello hi"),
() -> mytest.result.setBoolValue(true) )
.parallel()
.forEach(Runnable::run);
System.out.println("main finished");
System.out.println("Result is : " + mytest.result.toString());
}
I took out the debug information and the sleep as these don't alter the outcome.
You may want to choose CountDownLatch from java.util.concurrent. From JavaDocs:
A synchronization aid that allows one or more threads to wait until a
set of operations being performed in other threads completes.
Sample code:
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
public class Test {
private final ChildThread[] children;
private final CountDownLatch latch;
public Test() {
this.children = new ChildThread[4];
this.latch = new CountDownLatch(children.length);
children[0] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 1");
children[1] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 2");
children[2] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 3");
children[3] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 4");
}
public void run() {
startChildThreads();
waitForChildThreadsToComplete();
}
private void startChildThreads() {
Thread[] threads = new Thread[children.length];
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
ChildThread child = children[i];
threads[i] = new Thread(child);
threads[i].start();
}
}
private void waitForChildThreadsToComplete() {
try {
latch.await();
System.out.println("All child threads have completed.");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private class ChildThread implements Runnable {
private final String name;
private final CountDownLatch latch;
protected ChildThread(CountDownLatch latch, String name) {
this.latch = latch;
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// Implementation
System.out.println(name + " has completed.");
} finally {
latch.countDown();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test test = new Test();
test.run();
}
}
Output:
Task 1 has completed.
Task 4 has completed.
Task 3 has completed.
Task 2 has completed.
All child threads have completed.
There are many ways to approach this. Consider CountDownLatch:
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
public class WorkerTest {
final int NUM_JOBS = 3;
final CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(NUM_JOBS);
final Object mutex = new Object();
int workData = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
WorkerTest workerTest = new WorkerTest();
workerTest.go();
workerTest.awaitAndReportData();
}
private void go() {
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_JOBS; i++) {
final int fI = i;
Thread t = new Thread() {
public void run() {
synchronized(mutex) {
workData++;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(fI * 1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
countDownLatch.countDown();
}
};
t.start();
}
}
private void awaitAndReportData() throws InterruptedException {
countDownLatch.await();
synchronized(mutex) {
System.out.println("All workers done. workData=" + workData);
}
}
}
Check if all child threads are dead, every n seconds. Simple, yet effective method:
boolean allDead=false;
while(! allDead){
allDead=true;
for (int t = 0; t < threadCount; t++)
if(threads[t].isAlive()) allDead=false;
Thread.sleep(2000);
}
I have two very similar programs each trying to run two threads OddThread and EvenThread and trying to print the odd and even numbers in sequence . While the first one works , the second one hangs . Can anyone please pinpoint the bug in the second program ?
The first one which works :
public class ThreadTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Odd Even test");
NumHolder objNumHolder = new NumHolder();
Odd o1 = new Odd(objNumHolder, "Odd Number Thread");
Even e1 = new Even(objNumHolder, "Even Number Thread");
o1.start();
e1.start();
}
}
class NumHolder {
private int intCurrNum;
private boolean isEven = false;
public synchronized void printOddNumber(String tname) {
while (isEven == true){
try {
wait();
}catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
isEven = true;
System.out.println("Thread Name="+tname + "===Number="+intCurrNum);
intCurrNum += 1;
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized void printEvenNumber(String tname) {
while (isEven == false) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
isEven = false;
System.out.println("Thread Name="+tname + "===Number="+intCurrNum);
intCurrNum += 1;
notifyAll();
}
}
class Even extends Thread {
private NumHolder objNumHolder;
public Even(NumHolder p_objNumHolder, String name) {
super(name);
objNumHolder=p_objNumHolder;
}
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
objNumHolder.printEvenNumber(getName());
}
}
}
class Odd extends Thread {
private NumHolder objNumHolder;
public Odd(NumHolder p_objNumHolder,String name) {
super(name);
objNumHolder = p_objNumHolder;
}
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
objNumHolder.printOddNumber(getName());
}
}
}
The second code which hangs :
class PrintClass {
int intCurrNum;
private boolean isEven = false;
synchronized void printOdd(){
while(isEven){
try{
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException ie){
System.out.println("Interrupted exception in printOdd()");
ie.printStackTrace();
}
isEven = true;
System.out.println("Thread Name="+Thread.currentThread().getName() + "===Number="+intCurrNum);
intCurrNum += 1;
notifyAll();
}
}
synchronized void printEven(){
while(!isEven){
try{
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException ie){
System.out.println("Interrupted exception in printEven()");
ie.printStackTrace();
}
isEven = false;
System.out.println("Thread Name="+Thread.currentThread().getName() + "===Number="+intCurrNum);
intCurrNum += 1;
notifyAll();
}
}
}
class ThreadOdd extends Thread {
PrintClass pc = null;
ThreadOdd(PrintClass pc , String name){
super(name);
this.pc = pc;
}
public void run(){
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
pc.printOdd();
}
}
}
class ThreadEven extends Thread {
PrintClass pc = null;
ThreadEven(PrintClass pc,String name){
super(name);
this.pc = pc;
}
public void run(){
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
pc.printEven();
}
}
}
public class EvenOddPrintClass {
public static void main(String[] args){
PrintClass pc = new PrintClass();
Thread to = new ThreadOdd(pc,"ThreadOdd");
Thread te = new ThreadEven(pc,"ThreadEven");
to.start();
te.start();
}
}
Thanks.
I suggest you run your code in the debugger and step through both threads. It's very educational. You will see exactly where the error is.
In both versions, isEven starts out as false.
In the first version, printOddNumber will skip the whole while loop, print the odd number, set isEven to true and notify the even thread, which will print the even number and notify the odd thread again etc. in sequence.
In the second version, printOddNumber will skip the whole while loop, including printing the number and notifying the even thread. After 10 attempts it will exit without having printed anything, and leaving the even thread hanging without ever having notified it.
Interesting. So initially the isEven = false. If the printOdd() is called first then the while (isEven) test is false so printOdd() will exit immediately without generating any output. The while loops in your first program only encompass the wait test, not the entire method.
Then when printEven() is called by the other thread, it will call wait() and hang since there is no other thread to call notifyAll().
You only should want the while loop around the wait since you are going to exit after you print out the even or odd number anyway, right? So the logic in the first program is correct.
public class CountDownApp
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Thread count1 = new CountDownEven();
Thread count2 = new CountDownOdd();
count1.start();
count2.start();
}
}
class CountDownEven extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for(int i=10;i>0;i-=2)
{
System.out.print(+i+"-");
try {
Thread.sleep(2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class CountDownOdd extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for(int i=9;i>0;i-=2)
{
System.out.print(+i+"-");
try {
Thread.sleep(2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}