I need few of the functions in my program to run simultaneously. These processes returns records. But, the output of one is the input to the other. In such a case, if at a point of time function A takes some time to output some record to the function B, I need to the function B to wait till function A provides some records as input for this process. Can I achieve this simply by using the thread functionalities such as wait, join, etc.. Or Is there any other ways to achieve the same functionality.
Edited:
As per the below mentioned suggestions, If I use the producer-consumer algorithm with BlockingQueue,ExecutorService, Future and CountDownLatch, Can I achieve every functionalities I requested?
As mentioned above you can use blocking queue with producer consumer
OR
You can use countdown latch of the java concurrency to solve your problem.
How CountDownLatch works?
CountDownLatch.java class defines one constructor inside:
//Constructs a CountDownLatch initialized with the given count.
public void CountDownLatch(int count) {...}
This count is essentially the number of threads, for which latch should wait. This value can be set only once, and CountDownLatch provides no other mechanism to reset this count.
The first interaction with CountDownLatch is with main thread which is goind to wait for other threads. This main thread must call, CountDownLatch.await() method immediately after starting other threads. The execution will stop on await() method till the time, other threads complete their execution.
Other N threads must have reference of latch object, because they will need to notify the CountDownLatch object that they have completed their task. This notification is done by method : CountDownLatch.countDown(); Each invocation of method decreases the initial count set in constructor, by 1. So, when all N threads have call this method, count reaches to zero, and main thread is allowed to resume its execution past await() method.
Below is a simple example. After the Decrementer has called countDown() 3 times on the
CountDownLatch, the waiting Waiter is released from the await() call.
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(3);
Waiter waiter = new Waiter(latch);
Decrementer decrementer = new Decrementer(latch);
new Thread(waiter) .start();
new Thread(decrementer).start();
Thread.sleep(4000);
public class Waiter implements Runnable{
CountDownLatch latch = null;
public Waiter(CountDownLatch latch) {
this.latch = latch;
}
public void run() {
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Waiter Released");
}
}
public class Decrementer implements Runnable {
CountDownLatch latch = null;
public Decrementer(CountDownLatch latch) {
this.latch = latch;
}
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
this.latch.countDown();
Thread.sleep(1000);
this.latch.countDown();
Thread.sleep(1000);
this.latch.countDown();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
In your case you can use callable to create thread instead of runnable as you need to get the retrun value from one thread and have to pass that value to second thread.
In most cases you do not need to use wait etc. All you need to do is choose a good safe structure to use to communicate between your threads,
In this specific case I would suggest one of the concurrent queuue implementations, perhaps a BlockingQueue such as ArrayBlockingQueue.
Java's Fork and Join looks suitable for the usecase specified in your Question.
See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/forkjoin.html
Have a look at BlockingQueue classes and producer/consumer patterns.
The first thread is getting the work unit from an input blocking queue and putting its output to an output blocking queue (with size restrictions).
The second thread is doing the using this output queue as an input.
With this method you can also easialy adjust the number of threads.
Ensure the the work load per work unit is not to small.
This is similar to producer-consumer problem. You can use Java's BlockingQueue.
The process A will enqueue its results and the process B will wait until A's output is ready in the queue. When output of A is available, then B can read and consume it.
This looks like the consumer-producer-problem. As suggested by others you can use a BlockingQueue. Here is an example for how to use it:
public static void main(final String[] args) {
final ExecutorService producer = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final ExecutorService consumer = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final BlockingQueue<Integer> workpieces = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
producer.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
final Random rand = new Random();
for (;;) {
try {
workpieces.put(rand.nextInt());
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (final InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
return;
}
}
}
});
consumer.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (;;) {
try {
System.out.println("Got " + workpieces.take());
} catch (final InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
return;
}
}
}
});
}
It generates a random number every second in the producer-thread which is printed by the consumer-thread.
You can use BlockingQueue between producer and consumer threads. The producer will keep on adding results to queue if it is not full, concurrently the consumer thread can process pending messages from queue.
Related
I am calling some service that returns a response thru some callback function.
I used thread to call this service so that it is running in its own process.
The thread is called in my Main thread.
My question is how can I optimize my busy while loop in calling this service.
Sometimes the service fails and it is okay to just continue to retry looping in until a good response is received.
public class ProcessResponse extends Thread
boolean isOK = false;
public void responseReturned(Response response){
//more code
if(response.OK){
//process result
isOK = true;
}
}
public void run(){
while(true){
// call service
Thread.sleep(1000);
if(isOK)
break;
}
}
}
UPDATE 2:
My next line of thinking is just to use latch
public class ProcessResponse extends Thread
boolean isOK = false;
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
public void responseReturned(Response response){
//more code
if(response.OK){
//process result
isOK = true;
}
latch.countDown();
}
public void run(){
while(!isOK){
// call service
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
//handle interruption
}
latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
}
}
}
There is no sleep command but I am not sure if reinitializing the latch is a good approach. The service sometimes takes time to return.
Note..I haven't tried this code yet.. I just type it in so I am not sure if this will work.
There are lot of options that are fortunately available in JAVA 5 which you can use:
1) Cyclic Barrier:
Create a cyclic barrier of 2 and as the responseReturned will be called through main thread, you can simply put cyclic barrier await function to implement this. It has advantage that you can reuse the same barrier again and again without need to reinialize it.
2) CountDown Latch
Create a countdown latch of 1 and as soon as the responseReturned call the countdown function of latch, the await function in run will allow it to move ahead. It has a disadvantage that you have to reinitialize latch in case you want to reuse it.
3) ExecutorService
You can also use ExecutorService and can call future object get method to wait till proper response is returned.
4) Semaphore You can also use aquire before calling the service and release it in responseReturned. In run you can again call aquire post call to wait till response is returned.
All of them will allow you to implement the functionality with almost similar efficiency.
Hope that helps.
Future interface may be used for these kind of interactions along with ExecutorService I guees. Once you submit a request ,you can set the timeout for the callback etc.
Future<String> futureTask = executorService.submit(callable);
String result = null;
try {
result = futureTask.get(500, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException | TimeoutException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
I am dealing with threads and I want to run this code whenever I open Cal_JInternalFrame. It runs the fist time, but whenever I reopen the frame, it doesn't run again. I use t1.interrupted() at exit time of the whole application. The code is:
Thread t1 = new Thread( new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while ( !t1.isInterrupted() ) {
// ......... Oil Calculation Thread ...
int price = (Integer.parseInt(jLabel22.getText()));
int qty = (Integer)jSpinner8.getValue();
int totalOil =qty * price;
jTextField19.setText(String.valueOf(totalOil));
}
}
});
t1.start() is in the constructor of the main frame.
The thread primitive methods destroy(), stop(), resume(), and suspend() have been deprecated, so I can't use those. How can I stop and resume a thread now? And if my thread t1 is interrupted, how can it be resumed or run again?
Threads cannot be re-used. For tasks that require to be executed on a separate thread at different times, use a single thread executor.
It seems like you need a worker thread. Since standard threads are not reusable without extra work, we use worker threads to manage tasks that should be executed multiple times.
ExecutorService executors = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
With this, you can reuse a single thread to execute code multiple times. It also allows you to make asynchronous callbacks using Future like this:
class Demo {
static ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Future<String> result = executor.submit(new Callable<String>() {
public String call() {
//do something
return "Task Complete";
}
});
try {
System.out.println(result.get()); //get() blocks until call() returns with its value
}catch(Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
You can now re-use executor for the task that you want. It accepts Runnable through it's execute(Runnable) method.
I see you're using Swing. Post all swing code to the Event Dispatch Thread using EventQueue.invokeLater(Runnable). getText() and setText() should be called on the Event Dispatch Thread to avoid inconsistancies.
How can I stop and resume a thread now?
You can't. Instead, you need to make your thread stop and resume itself. For example:
private boolean wake;
public synchronized void wakeup() {
this.wake = true;
this.notify();
}
public void run() {
while ( !t1.isInterrupted() ) {
// do stuff ...
wake = false;
synchronized (this) {
while (!wake) {
try {
this.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
t1.interrupt(); // reset the interrupted flag
}
}
}
}
}
When some other thread wants to get this one to do something, the calls the wakeup() method on the extended runnable object.
And if my thread t1 is interrupted, how can it be resumed or run again?
As you have written it, No. Once the thread returns from the run() method call, it cannot be restarted. You would need to create and start a brand new Thread.
However, what you are trying to do is unsafe. As #Erwin points out, it is not safe for the t1 thread to be calling methods on Swing objects such as jTextField19. You should only call methods on Swing objects from the Swing event dispatching thread.
Reference:
Concurrency in Swing
Here's essentially my problem:
while (true) {
if (previous 'doWorkAsync' method is not still in flight) {
doWorkAsync() // this returns immediately
}
wait set amount of time
}
A couple solutions come to mind for me:
Block until doWorkAsync() completes. This is not desirable to me for a few reasons.
It (potentially) results in waiting longer than I really needed to in the 'wait some set amount of time' line (e.g. if doWorkAsync takes 5 seconds, and the set amount of waiting time is 10 seconds, this will result in 15 seconds of waiting between calls, which isn't what I wanted). Of course, I could account for this by waiting less time, but somehow it just feels clunky.
It also ties up this thread unnecessarily. Instead of waiting for this task to come back, this thread could handle other work, like making config updates so the next call to doWorkAsync() has fresh data.
Use a gating mechanism. The easiest implementation that comes to mind is a boolean, set before calls to doWorkAsync(), and unset when doWorkAsync() completes. This is essentially what I'm doing now, but I'm not sure if it's an anti-pattern??
Is #2 the right way to go, or are there better ways to solve this problem?
EDIT: If it helps, doWorkAsync() returns a ListenableFuture (of guava).
The original question may not have been 100% clear. Here's the crux. If the async request finishes before the given timeout, this code will always work. However, if the async task takes SET_AMOUNT_OF_TIME + epsilon to complete, then this code will sleep twice as long as necessary, which is what I'm trying to avoid.
The simplest way to do this is using the wait and notifyAll methods already in Java. All you need to do is use an AtomicBoolean as a flag and block on it until the another Thread tells you something has changed.
The difference between that and your approach is that a blocked thread doesn't do anything whereas a polling thread uses CPU time.
Here is a simple example using two Threads - the Runnable "First" is submitted and it waits on done until the Runnable "Second" notifies that it has changed the flag.
public class App {
private static final AtomicBoolean done = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private static final class First implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while (!done.get()) {
System.out.println("Waiting.");
synchronized (done) {
try {
done.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
}
}
}
System.out.println("Done!");
}
}
private static final class Second implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
}
done.set(true);
synchronized (done) {
done.notifyAll();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
executorService.submit(new First());
Thread.sleep(1000);
executorService.submit(new Second());
executorService.shutdown();
}
}
The sleep calls are just to show that a task of arbitrary length can take place, obviously they are not required.
The thing to note is that First prints "waiting" every time it enters the loop and, if you run the code, it only prints it once. The second thing to note is that First reacts to the changing of the flag immediately as it is told to awake and recheck when the flag is changed.
I have used return in the InterruptedException blocks, you may want to used Thread.currentThread().interrupt() instead so that the process doesn't die if it's spuriously interrupted.
A more advanced approach is to use Lock and Condition
public class App {
private static final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private static final Condition condition = lock.newCondition();
private static final class First implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
lock.lock();
System.out.println("Waiting");
try {
condition.await();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
System.out.println("Done!");
}
}
private static final class Second implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
lock.lock();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
condition.signalAll();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
executorService.submit(new First());
Thread.sleep(1000);
executorService.submit(new Second());
executorService.shutdown();
}
}
In this situation First acquires a lock on the Lock object the immediately calls await on the Condition. The releases the lock and blocks on the Condition.
Second then acquires a lock on the Lock and calls signalAll on the Condition which awakes First.
First then reacquires the lock and continues execution, printing "Done!".
EDIT
The OP would like to call the method doWorkAsync with a specified period, if the method takes less time than the period then the process has to wait. If the method takes longer then the method should be called again immediately after.
The task needs to be stopped after a certain time.
At no point should the method be running more than once simultaneously.
The easiest approach would be to call the method from a ScheduledExecutorService, the Runnable would wrap the method and call get on the Future - blocking the scheduled executor until it is done.
This guarantees that the method is called with at least WAIT_TIME_BETWEEN_CALLS_SECS delay.
Then schedule another task that kills the first one after a set time.
final ScheduledExecutorService scheduledExecutorService = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
final Future<?> taskHandle = scheduledExecutorService.scheduleAtFixedRate(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
final ListenableFuture<Void> lf = doWorkAsync();
try {
doWorkAsync().get();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
} catch (ExecutionException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
}, 0, WAIT_TIME_BETWEEN_CALLS_SECS, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
scheduledExecutorService.schedule(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
taskHandle.cancel(false);
}
}, TOTAL_TIME_SECS, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
The best solution would be call the raw Runnable on a ScheduledExecutorService rather than calling it on another executor and blocking on the ListenableFuture.
Think what you are looking for is The Reactor Pattern.
Is there a reason you don't want these things running at the same time? If what you want to do is chain them, you could use Futures. Akka has Composable Futures and mappable ones.
I'm writing an application that spawns multiple concurrent tasks. I'm using a thread pool to implement that.
It may happen that an event occurs that renders the computations being done in the tasks invalid. In that case, I would like to stop the currently running tasks, and start new ones.
My problem: How do I stop the currently running tasks? The solution I implemented is to store a reference to the task thread and call interrupt() on this thread. In demo code:
public class Task implements Runnable {
private String name;
private Thread runThread;
public Task(String name) {
super();
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
runThread = Thread.currentThread();
System.out.println("Starting thread " + name);
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(4000);
System.out.println("Hello from thread " + name);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// We've been interrupted: no more messages.
return;
}
}
}
public void stop() {
runThread.interrupt();
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
And the main method is:
public static void main(String args[]) {
executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
Task t1 = new Task("Task1");
Task t2 = new Task("Task2");
executorService.execute(t1);
executorService.execute(t2);
executorService.execute(new Task("Task3"));
executorService.execute(new Task("Task4"));
try {
Thread.sleep(12000);
t1.stop();
System.err.println("Stopped thread " + t1.getName());
Thread.sleep(8000);
t2.stop();
System.err.println("Stopped thread " + t2.getName());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Is this a good solution, or is there a better way to stop a running thread in a thread pool?
You can stop it by holding a reference to that future
Future<?> future = exec.submit( new Runnable() {
while (true){
try{
obj.wait();
} catch(InterruptedException e){
System.out.println("interrupted");
return;
}
}
});
future.cancel(true);
boolean is for - may interrupt if running.
I tested out and got an interrupted exception from that thread.
If you have cachedThreadPool you may want to double check that you catch the exception in your runnable, and then don't set back the flag interrupted, because your thread will run another future, if you set interrupt, the other queue future may not run.
The idea behind your approach is one of the several correct solutions. Dealing with InterruptedException gives a great rundown on how you should use the interrupt mechanism. This mechanism is mainly useful when you are long computations. One other thing to keep in mind is that it is possible for other libraries to spoil your interrupt mechanism by not doing what the guide says (not resetting the interrupt state when they haven't handled it etc).
Do note that your Task class isn't thread-safe. You could be stopping the task before saving the currentThread, which would give a NullPointerException.
A much simpler approach is to set a volatile boolean variable running and instead of a while(true) loop doing a while(running) approach (this is however much more general).
Another thing to look at is the FutureTask mechanism, as this already has a canceling mechanism that uses the interrupt mechanism.
In your overridden run() method you loop forever with while(true). The standard behaviour would be to have a boolean runIndicator which the run() method sets to true when it starts, and your loop should then be while(runIndicator). Your stop() method should simple set runIndicator = false so the next iteration of the loop will fall out.
executorService.shutdown() and executorService.shutdownNow() should be used to shutdown the thread pool to gracefully exiting the application. See ExecutorService.
See Qwerky's answer for ending the currently running thread.
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();
}
}
}