Develop Reference

What is the difference between ExecutorService.submit and ExecutorService.execute in this code in Java?

I am learning to use ExectorService to pool threads and send out tasks. I have a simple program below
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
class Processor implements Runnable {
private int id;
public Processor(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println("Starting: " + id);
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("sorry, being interupted, good bye!");
System.out.println("Interrupted " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Completed: " + id);
}
}
public class ExecutorExample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Boolean isCompleted = false;
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
executor.execute(new Processor(i));
}
//executor does not accept any more tasks but the submitted tasks continue
executor.shutdown();
System.out.println("All tasks submitted.");
try {
//wait for the exectutor to terminate normally, which will return true
//if timeout happens, returns false, but this does NOT interrupt the threads
isCompleted = executor.awaitTermination(100, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
//this will interrupt thread it manages. catch the interrupted exception in the threads
//If not, threads will run forever and executor will never be able to shutdown.
executor.shutdownNow();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
if (isCompleted) {
System.out.println("All tasks completed.");
} else {
System.out.println("Timeout " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}
It does nothing fancy, but creates two threads and submits 5 tasks in total. After each thread completes its task, it takes the next one,
In the code above, I use executor.submit. I also changed to executor.execute. But I do not see any difference in the output. In what way are the submit and execute methods different?
This what the API says
Method submit extends base method Executor.execute(java.lang.Runnable) by creating and returning a Future that can be used to cancel execution and/or wait for completion. Methods invokeAny and invokeAll perform the most commonly useful forms of bulk execution, executing a collection of tasks and then waiting for at least one, or all, to complete. (Class ExecutorCompletionService can be used to write customized variants of these methods.)
But it's not clear to me as what it exactly means?

As you see from the JavaDoc execute(Runnable) does not return anything.
However, submit(Callable<T>) returns a Future object which allows a way for you to programatically cancel the running thread later as well as get the T that is returned when the Callable completes. See JavaDoc of Future for more details
Future<?> future = executor.submit(longRunningJob);
...
//long running job is taking too long
future.cancel(true);
Moreover,
if future.get() == null and doesn't throw any exception then Runnable executed successfully

The difference is that execute simply starts the task without any further ado, whereas submit returns a Future object to manage the task. You can do the following things with the Future object:
Cancel the task prematurely, with the cancel method.
Wait for the task to finish executing, with get.
The Future interface is more useful if you submit a Callable to the pool. The return value of the call method will be returned when you call Future.get. If you don't maintain a reference to the Future, there is no difference.

execute: Use it for fire and forget calls
submit: Use it to inspect the result of method call and take appropriate action on Future objected returned by the call
Major difference: Exception handling
submit() hides un-handled Exception in framework itself.
execute() throws un-handled Exception.
Solution for handling Exceptions with submit()
Wrap your Callable or Runnable code in try{} catch{} block
OR
Keep future.get() call in try{} catch{} block
OR
implement your own ThreadPoolExecutor and override afterExecute method
Regarding tour other queries on
invokeAll:
Executes the given tasks, returning a list of Futures holding their status and results when all complete or the timeout expires, whichever happens first.
invokeAny:
Executes the given tasks, returning the result of one that has completed successfully (i.e., without throwing an exception), if any do before the given timeout elapses.
Use invokeAll if you want to wait for all submitted tasks to complete.
Use invokeAny if you are looking for successful completion of one task out of N submitted tasks. In this case, tasks in progress will be cancelled if one of the tasks completes successfully.
Related post with code example:
Choose between ExecutorService's submit and ExecutorService's execute

A main difference between the submit() and execute() method is that ExecuterService.submit()can return result of computation because it has a return type of Future, but execute() method cannot return anything because it's return type is void. The core interface in Java 1.5's Executor framework is the Executor interface which defines the execute(Runnable task) method, whose primary purpose is to separate the task from its execution.
Any task submitted to Executor can be executed by the same thread, a worker thread from a thread pool or any other thread.
On the other hand, submit() method is defined in the ExecutorService interface which is a sub-interface of Executor and adds the functionality of terminating the thread pool, along with adding submit() method which can accept a Callable task and return a result of computation.
Similarities between the execute() and submit() as well:
Both submit() and execute() methods are used to submit a task to Executor framework for asynchronous execution.
Both submit() and execute() can accept a Runnable task.
You can access submit() and execute() from the ExecutorService interface because it also extends the Executor interface which declares the execute() method.
Apart from the fact that submit() method can return output and execute() cannot, following are other notable differences between these two key methods of Executor framework of Java 5.
The submit() can accept both Runnable and Callable task but execute() can only accept the Runnable task.
The submit() method is declared in ExecutorService interface while execute() method is declared in the Executor interface.
The return type of submit() method is a Future object but return type of execute() method is void.

If you check the source code, you will see that submit is sort of a wrapper on execute
public Future<?> submit(Runnable task) {
if (task == null) throw new NullPointerException();
RunnableFuture<Void> ftask = newTaskFor(task, null);
execute(ftask);
return ftask;
}

Submit - Returns Future object, which can be used to check result of submitted task. Can be used to cancel or to check isDone etc.
Execute - doesn't return anything.

The execute(Runnable command) is the implemented method from Interface Executor. It means just execute the command and gets nothing returned.
ExecutorService has its own methods for starting tasks: submit, invokeAny and invokeAll all of which have Callable instances as their main targets. Though there're methods having Runnable as input, actulaly Runnable will be adapted to Callable in the method. why Callable? Because we can get a Future<T> result after the task is submitted.
But when you transform a Runnable to a Callable, result you get is just the value you pass:
static final class RunnableAdapter<T> implements Callable<T> {
final Runnable task;
final T result;
RunnableAdapter(Runnable task, T result) {
this.task = task;
this.result = result;
}
public T call() {
task.run();
return result;
}
}
So, what's the point that we pass a Runnable to submit instead of just getting the result when the task is finished? Because there's a method which has only Runnable as parameter without a particular result.
Read the javadoc of Future:
If you would like to use a Future for the sake of cancellability but not provide a usable result, you can declare types of the form Future<?> and return null as a result of the underlying task.
So, if you just want to execute a Runnable task without any value returned, you can use execute().
if you want to run a Callable task, or
if you want to run a Runnable task with a specified result as the completion symbol, or
if you want to run a task and have the ability to cancel it,
you should use submit().

On top of previous responses, i.e.
execute(..) runs the task and forget about it
submit(...) returns a future;
The main advantage with the future is that you can establish a timeout. This might come very handy if you have an executor with a limited number of threads and your executions are taking forever, it will not hang the process.
Example 1: hangs forever and fills the executor
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
for (int i=0; i < 5; i++) {
executor.execute(() -> {
while (true) {
System.out.println("Running...")
Thread.sleep(Long.MAX_VALUE)
}
});
}
Your output will be (i.e. only 2 and it gets stuck):
Running...
Running...
On the other hand, you can use submit and add a timeout:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
for (int i=0; i < 5; i++) {
Future future = executor.submit(() -> {
while (true) {
System.out.println("Running...");
Thread.sleep(Long.MAX_VALUE);
}
});
try {
future.get(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (Exception e) {
if (!future.isDone()) {
System.out.println("Oops: " + e.getClass().getSimpleName());
future.cancel(true);
}
}
}
The output will look like this (notice that the executor does not get stuck, but you need to manually cancel the future):
Running...
Oops: TimeoutException
Running...
Oops: TimeoutException
Running...
Oops: TimeoutException
Running...
Oops: TimeoutException
Running...
Oops: TimeoutException

basically both calls execute,if u want future object you shall call submit() method
here from the doc
public <T> Future<T> submit(Callable<T> task) {
if (task == null) throw new NullPointerException();
RunnableFuture<T> ftask = newTaskFor(task);
execute(ftask);
return ftask;
}
public <T> Future<T> submit(Runnable task, T result) {
if (task == null) throw new NullPointerException();
RunnableFuture<T> ftask = newTaskFor(task, result);
execute(ftask);
return ftask;
}
as you can see java really has no way to start a thread other than calling run() method, IMO. since i also found that Callable.call() method is called inside run() method. hence if the object is callable it would still call run() method, which inturn would call call() method
from doc.
public void run() {
if (state != NEW ||
!UNSAFE.compareAndSwapObject(this, runnerOffset,
null, Thread.currentThread()))
return;
try {
Callable<V> c = callable;
if (c != null && state == NEW) {
V result;
boolean ran;
try {
result = c.call();
ran = true;
} catch (Throwable ex) {
result = null;
ran = false;
setException(ex);
}
if (ran)
set(result);
}
} finally {
// runner must be non-null until state is settled to
// prevent concurrent calls to run()
runner = null;
// state must be re-read after nulling runner to prevent
// leaked interrupts
int s = state;
if (s >= INTERRUPTING)
handlePossibleCancellationInterrupt(s);
}
}

Interrupt Thread in java

I have a situation where I'm using a Thread, she call a method that will do multiple processes, I need to use a "cancel" button in which you have to stop the thread, I not can use: "while" ,to verify that it was canceled because it not has loop in this process.
Ex:
Task<Void> task = new Task<Void>() {
#Override
protected Void call() throws Exception {
controller = new FirstEtapaController();
execProcess();
return null;
}
};
new Thread(task).start();
Call Method
private void execProcess() {
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
getController().execMhetod();
refreshTable();
}
});
thread.start();
thread.join();
};
Ie, I need to stop this process, even when the "ExecMethod" already running, it will take minutes, so I've gotta stop it and not have to wait for him to finish so that , others do not continues.
Remembering that this process will do iteration with my DAO.

The only way (well behaved way) is to add logic points in you spawned threads to check for an interrupted state. You can choose to use the built-in Thread.interrupt() mechanisms, or add your own logic using some form of thread-safe variable (an AtomicBoolean?) or a Semaphore of some sort.
If you use the Thread.interrupt() then your child processes will throw an InterruptedException when they encounter certain conditions, like Thread.wait() and other methods which require synchronization or use the java.util.concurrent.* classes.
You will need to (should already be) handle the InterruptedExceptions in the threads anyway, but perhaps you will need to put regular 'checks' in your child processes to look for the interrupted state anyway (can use Thread.isInterrupted() )
It is worth reading this Handling InterruptedException in Java

If instead of a raw Thread if you use an ExecutorService you'll end up with lots of additional methods/levers to control your threads, one of which is shutdownAll() which uses Thread.interrupt() to kill your thread and lets you check thread status via isTerminated()

Your user interface does not have to wait for the worker thread to finish, so don't worry too much about that.
Alas, Thread.destroy() and Thread.stop() are deprecated, due to bad implementations. I don't think there is a good "sig-kill" type of substitute for Java threads. You are going to have to recode the worker to check an abort flag of some kind, if it matters much. Otherwise, just let it waste a little CPU. ("you can't cancel that Save -- I've already done it!", in effect)

Whether or not a task can be canceled really depends on its implementation. Typically it intermittently checks a flag whether it should continue or not.
You can implement such a flag yourself, and a method to set it :
private volatile boolean shouldStop;
public void cancel() {
shouldStop = true;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (!shouldStop) {
// do work
}
}
But threads already come with a flag : the interrupted flag. And while it is not necessarily used for canceling a thread, it is typical to use it for exactly that purpose. In fact the standard ExecutorService implementations will try to cancel their threads by interrupting them.
Aside from that several blocking methods (methods that put a thread in BLOCKED or WAITING state) will throw an InterruptedException when the thread is interrupted, at which point they become RUNNABLE again. This is something the previous approach with a boolean flag cannot achieve.
Therefore it is a better approach to use interruption to allow a task to be canceled. And you do not really need that cancel() method any more either :
#Override
public void run() {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// do work
}
}
As a bonus, any code that knows your thread, knows how to cancel it. Including standard ExecutorService implementations.
Care should be taken when catching an InterruptedException, since doing that clears the interrupted flag. It is adviseable to always restore the interrupted flag when catching the Exception, so clients also know it's time to stop doing what they're doing.
private BlockingQueue<Integer> queue;
#Override
public void run() {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
try {
Integer id = queue.take(); // blocking method
// do work
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
To cancel a thread, you can simply keep a reference to the Thread object and call interrupt() on it :
Thread thread = new Thread(new InterruptibleTask());
thread.start();
// some time after :
thread.interrupt();
But a more elegant approach is keeping tabs on your task (and not so much the specific thread it runs on) through a Future object. You can do this by wrapping your Runnable or Callable in a FutureTask.
RunnableFuture<Void> task = new FutureTask<>(new InterruptibleTask(), null);
new Thread(task).start();
// some time after :
task.cancel(true); // true indicating interruption may be used to cancel.
A Future is key in controlling your task. It allows you to wait for its completion, and optionally receive a value the task calculated :
try {
String value = future.get(); // return value is generically typed String is just as example.
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); // since future.get() blocks
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
logger.log(Level.SEVERE, "Exception on worker thread", e.getCause()); // the ExecutionException's cause is the Exception that occurred in the Task
}
If you have several tasks (or even just one) it is worth using an ExecutorService :
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
Future<?> submit = pool.submit(new InterruptibleTask());
pool.shutdownNow(); // depending on ExecutorService implementation this will cancel all tasks for you, the ones Executors returns do.

How to cancel an ExecutorService in java

I wrote an application that runs some threads using ExecutorService and waits until they finish like this:
ExecutorService exService;
exService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
exService.execute(T1);
exService.execute(T2);
exService.shutdown();
boolean finshed = exService.awaitTermination(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
sometimes I need to cancel the execution of these threads (The entire ExecutorService).
I tried exService.shutdownNow() but it throws java.lang.InterruptedException and doesn't cancel threads.
How can I cancel execution of these threads?
EDIT: T1 class code added as nanda's request
public class TC implements Runnable{
private ExtractedDataBuffer Buffer;
private Scraper scraper;
private String AppPath;
private boolean Succeed=false;
private Map<String,Object> Result=null;
private JLabel StatElement;
public TC(ExtractedDataBuffer Buffer,String AppPath,String XMLfile,JLabel Stat) throws FileNotFoundException {
this.Buffer = Buffer;
this.AppPath=AppPath;
this.StatElement=Stat;
ScraperConfiguration config;
config = new ScraperConfiguration(AppPath + Main.XMLFilesPath +XMLfile);
scraper = new Scraper(config, AppPath);
}
private void extract(){
try{
mainF.SetIconStat("working", this.StatElement);
scraper.execute();
if(scraper.getStatus()==Scraper.STATUS_FINISHED){
this.Succeed=true;
Map<String,Object> tmp=new HashMap<String,Object>();
tmp.put("UpdateTime", ((Variable) scraper.getContext().get("UpdateTime")).toString().trim());
Buffer.setVal(this.Result);
mainF.SetIconStat("done", this.StatElement);
}else{
this.Succeed=false;
this.Result=null;
Buffer.setVal(null);
mainF.SetIconStat("error", this.StatElement);
}
}catch(Exception ex){
this.Succeed=false;
this.Result=null;
Buffer.setVal(null);
mainF.SetIconStat("error", this.StatElement);
}
}
public void run() {
this.extract();
}
}

If you change shutdown() to shutdownNow(), you are doing the correct thing in the code that you wrote. But then, check the documentation of shutdownNow():
There are no guarantees beyond best-effort attempts to stop processing
actively executing tasks. For example, typical implementations will
cancel via Thread.interrupt(), so any task that fails to respond to
interrupts may never terminate.
So probably your T1 and T2 are not coded in a correct way and don't respond to the interrupt well enough. Can you maybe copy the code for them?
--
Based on your code, I guess the code that takes long time is scraper.execute(), right? So inside those method, you have to constantly check something like this:
if (Thread.interrupted()) {
throw new InterruptedException();
}
If the interrupt come, the InterruptedException will be thrown and catched in your catch statement and the thread will stop.

My problem with Future#cancel() is that subsequent calls to get() throw a CancellationException. Sometimes I still want be able to call get() on the Future in order to retrieve a partial result after the shutdown of the executor service. In that case one can implement the termination logic in the callables that you submit to the executor service. Use a field like
private volatile boolean terminate;
public void terminate() {
terminate = true;
}
and check for terminate in the callable as often as required. In addition, you have to remember your callables somewhere so you can call terminate() on all of them.

Use the Executor.submit method, it extends base method Executor.execute(java.lang.Runnable) by creating and returning a Future that can be used to cancel execution and/or wait for completion:
task = Executor.submit( T1 )
...
task.cancel( true )

Java: Creating a multi threaded reader

I'm creating a reader application. The reader identifies based on the parameters which file to read, does some processing and returns the result to the caller.
I am trying to make this multi-threaded, so that multiple requests can be processed. I thought it was simple but later realized it has some complexity. Even though i create threads using executor service, I still need to return the results back to the caller. So this means waiting for the thread to execute.
Only way i can think of is write to some common location or db and let the caller pick the result from there. Is there any approach possible?

Maybe an ExecutorCompletionService can help you. The submitted tasks are placed on a queue when completed. You can use the methods take or poll depending on if you want to wait or not for a task to be available on the completion queue.
ExecutorCompletionService javadoc

Use an ExecutorService with a thread pool of size > 1, post custom FutureTask derivatives which override the done() method to signal completion of the task to the UI:
public class MyTask extends FutureTask<MyModel> {
private final MyUI ui;
public MyTask(MyUI toUpdateWhenDone, Callable<MyModel> taskToRun) {
super(taskToRun);
ui=toUpdateWhenDone;
}
#Override
protected void done() {
try {
// retrieve computed result
final MyModel computed=get();
// trigger an UI update with the new model
java.awt.EventQueue.invokeLater(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
ui.setModel(computed); // set the new UI model
}
});
}
catch(InterruptedException canceled) {
// task was canceled ... handle this case here
}
catch(TimeoutException timeout) {
// task timed out (if there are any such constraints).
// will not happen if there are no constraints on when the task must complete
}
catch(ExecutionException error) {
// handle exceptions thrown during computation of the MyModel object...
// happens if the callable passed during construction of the task throws an
// exception when it's call() method is invoked.
}
}
}
EDIT: For more complex tasks which need to signal status updates, it may be a good idea to create custom SwingWorker derivatives in this manner and post those on the ExecutorService. (You should for the time being not attempt to run multiple SwingWorkers concurrently as the current SwingWorker implementation effectively does not permit it.)

Choose between ExecutorService's submit and ExecutorService's execute

How should I choose between ExecutorService's submit or execute, if the returned value is not my concern?
If I test both, I didn't see any differences among the two except the returned value.
ExecutorService threadExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
threadExecutor.execute(new Task());
ExecutorService threadExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
threadExecutor.submit(new Task());

There is a difference concerning exception/error handling.
A task queued with execute() that generates some Throwable will cause the UncaughtExceptionHandler for the Thread running the task to be invoked. The default UncaughtExceptionHandler, which typically prints the Throwable stack trace to System.err, will be invoked if no custom handler has been installed.
On the other hand, a Throwable generated by a task queued with submit() will bind the Throwable to the Future that was produced from the call to submit(). Calling get() on that Future will throw an ExecutionException with the original Throwable as its cause (accessible by calling getCause() on the ExecutionException).

execute: Use it for fire and forget calls
submit: Use it to inspect the result of method call and take appropriate action on Future objected returned by the call
From javadocs
submit(Callable<T> task)
Submits a value-returning task for execution and returns a Future
representing the pending results of the task.
Future<?> submit(Runnable task)
Submits a Runnable task for execution and returns a Future representing that
task.
void execute(Runnable command)
Executes the given command at some time in the future. The command may execute in a new thread, in a pooled thread, or in the calling thread, at the discretion of the Executor implementation.
You have to take precaution while using submit(). It hides exception in the framework itself unless you embed your task code in try{} catch{} block.
Example code: This code swallows Arithmetic exception : / by zero.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.*;
public class ExecuteSubmitDemo{
public ExecuteSubmitDemo()
{
System.out.println("creating service");
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
//ExtendedExecutor service = new ExtendedExecutor();
service.submit(new Runnable(){
public void run(){
int a=4, b = 0;
System.out.println("a and b="+a+":"+b);
System.out.println("a/b:"+(a/b));
System.out.println("Thread Name in Runnable after divide by zero:"+Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
});
service.shutdown();
}
public static void main(String args[]){
ExecuteSubmitDemo demo = new ExecuteSubmitDemo();
}
}
output:
java ExecuteSubmitDemo
creating service
a and b=4:0
Same code throws by replacing submit() with execute() :
Replace
service.submit(new Runnable(){
with
service.execute(new Runnable(){
output:
java ExecuteSubmitDemo
creating service
a and b=4:0
Exception in thread "pool-1-thread-1" java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
at ExecuteSubmitDemo$1.run(ExecuteSubmitDemo.java:14)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
How to handle the these type of scenarios while using submit()?
Embed your Task code ( Either Runnable or Callable implementation) with try{} catch{} block code
Implement CustomThreadPoolExecutor
New solution:
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.*;
public class ExecuteSubmitDemo{
public ExecuteSubmitDemo()
{
System.out.println("creating service");
//ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
ExtendedExecutor service = new ExtendedExecutor();
service.submit(new Runnable(){
public void run(){
int a=4, b = 0;
System.out.println("a and b="+a+":"+b);
System.out.println("a/b:"+(a/b));
System.out.println("Thread Name in Runnable after divide by zero:"+Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
});
service.shutdown();
}
public static void main(String args[]){
ExecuteSubmitDemo demo = new ExecuteSubmitDemo();
}
}
class ExtendedExecutor extends ThreadPoolExecutor {
public ExtendedExecutor() {
super(1,1,60,TimeUnit.SECONDS,new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(100));
}
// ...
protected void afterExecute(Runnable r, Throwable t) {
super.afterExecute(r, t);
if (t == null && r instanceof Future<?>) {
try {
Object result = ((Future<?>) r).get();
} catch (CancellationException ce) {
t = ce;
} catch (ExecutionException ee) {
t = ee.getCause();
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); // ignore/reset
}
}
if (t != null)
System.out.println(t);
}
}
output:
java ExecuteSubmitDemo
creating service
a and b=4:0
java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero

if you dont care about the return type, use execute. it's the same as submit, just without the return of Future.

Taken from the Javadoc:
Method submit extends base method {#link Executor#execute} by creating and
returning a {#link Future} that can be used to cancel execution and/or wait for
completion.
Personally I prefer the use of execute because it feels more declarative, although this really is a matter of personal preference.
To give more information: in the case of the ExecutorService implementation, the core implementation being returned by the call to Executors.newSingleThreadedExecutor() is a ThreadPoolExecutor.
The submit calls are provided by its parent AbstractExecutorService and all call execute internally. execute is overridden/provided by the ThreadPoolExecutor directly.

The full answer is a composition of two answers that were published here (plus a bit "extra"):
By submitting a task (vs. executing it) you get back a future which can be used to get the result or cancel the action. You don't have this kind of control when you execute (because its return type id void)
execute expects a Runnable while submit can take either a Runnable or a Callable as an argument (for more info about the difference between the two - see below).
execute bubbles up any unchecked-exceptions right away (it cannot throw checked exceptions!!!), while submit binds any kind of exception to the future that returns as a result, and only when you call future.get() a the (wrapped) exception will be thrown . The Throwable that you'll get is an instance of ExecutionException and if you'll call this object's getCause() it will return the original Throwable.
A few more (related) points:
Even if the task that you want to submit does not require returning a
result, you can still use Callable<Void> (instead of using a Runnable).
Cancellation of tasks can be done using the interrupt mechanism. Here's an example of how to implement a cancellation policy
To sum up, it's a better practice to use submit with a Callable (vs. execute with a Runnable). And I'll quote from "Java concurrency in practice" By Brian Goetz:
6.3.2 Result-bearing tasks: Callable and Future
The Executor framework uses Runnable as its basic task representation. Runnable is a fairly
limiting abstraction; run cannot return a value or throw checked
exceptions, although it can have side effects such as writing to a log
file or placing a result in a shared data structure. Many tasks are
effectively deferred computations—executing a database query, fetching
a resource over the network, or computing a complicated function. For
these types of tasks, Callable is a better abstraction: it expects
that the main entry point, call, will return a value and anticipates
that it might throw an exception.7 Executors includes several utility
methods for wrapping other types of tasks, including Runnable and
java.security.PrivilegedAction, with a Callable.

From the Javadoc:
The command may execute in a new thread, in a pooled thread, or in the calling thread, at the discretion of the Executor implementation.
So depending on the implementation of Executor you may find that the submitting thread blocks while the task is executing.

Just adding to the accepted answer-
However, exceptions thrown from tasks make it to the uncaught
exception handler only for tasks submitted with execute(); for tasks
submitted with submit() to the executor service, any thrown exception
is considered to be part of the task’s return status.
Source