Develop Reference

How to avoid thread in threadpool dead when exception thrown without try catch

My code looks like this:
public class ExceptionTest {
public static Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(ExceptionTest.class);
public final static ThreadFactory factory = new ThreadFactory() {
#Override
public Thread newThread(Runnable target) {
final Thread thread = new Thread(target);
log.debug("Creating new worker thread");
thread.setUncaughtExceptionHandler(new UncaughtExceptionHandler() {
#Override
public void uncaughtException(Thread t, Throwable e) {
log.error("Uncaught Exception", e);
}
});
return thread;
}
};
final static ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool(factory);
public static void main(String[] args) {
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
int i = 1;
int j = 0;
System.out.println(i / j);
}
}
});
}
}
The console only print the message one time. This means the thread has died. Is there any other way to prevent thread death (except try catch block, this is much repeated code).

No, you can not achieve this without using try...catch block, see jls:
If no catch clause that can handle an exception can be found, then the
current thread (the thread that encountered the exception) is
terminated.
And, I do not think the termination of threads in a cached thread pool is a problem, since next time you submit a new task, a new thread will be created to handle it.
If it really matters, and you do not want repeated code, you can write a wrapper class like this:
public class WrapperRunnable implements Runnable {
Runnable runnable;
public WrapperRunnable(Runnable runnable) {
this.runnable = runnable;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
runnable.run();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
And submit WrapperRunnable to executor:
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
int i = 1;
int j = 0;
System.out.println(i / j);
}
};
WrapperRunnable wrapperRunnable = new WrapperRunnable(runnable);
executor.execute(wrapperRunnable);

Java: How to put thread back to sleep INDEFINITELY after interrupt?

I am writing Java software, that has a single thread, which listens to external buttons being pressed. If the button is pressed, the thread informs other threads, but otherwise it just sleeps.
My model is to use interrupt-driven design. Ideally I would like to make
a thread sleep as long as no button is pressed. When the button is pressed I would like the thread to do some work and go back to sleep.
Could anyone confirm / correct the following implementation?
// This is a code that interrupt-driven thread will execute
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000); // Sleeps only for 1s. How to sleep indefinitely?
} catch (InterruptedException exception) {
process(exception); // Doing some work
// then going back to sleep using the while loop
}
}
}
Also, after each button click in the terminal I get a message
I/O exception raised from stop()
What does this message mean (i.e why is it printed if I catch the exception)? Can I avoid the terminal to print it?

It is generally considered a code smell if you use exceptions to control your program flow.
The correct solution to this problem is to use a BlockingQueue of events that the event handler reads from. This is commonly called a producer/consumer.
public class TwoThreads {
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
System.out.println("TwoThreads:Test");
new TwoThreads().test();
}
// The end of the list.
private static final Integer End = -1;
static class Producer implements Runnable {
final BlockingQueue<Integer> queue;
public Producer(BlockingQueue<Integer> queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
queue.add(i);
Thread.sleep(1);
}
// Finish the queue.
queue.add(End);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// Just exit.
}
}
}
static class Consumer implements Runnable {
final BlockingQueue<Integer> queue;
public Consumer(BlockingQueue<Integer> queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
boolean ended = false;
while (!ended) {
try {
Integer i = queue.take();
ended = i == End;
System.out.println(i);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ended = true;
}
}
}
}
public void test() throws InterruptedException {
BlockingQueue<Integer> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
Thread pt = new Thread(new Producer(queue));
Thread ct = new Thread(new Consumer(queue));
// Start it all going.
pt.start();
ct.start();
// Wait for it to finish.
pt.join();
ct.join();
}
}
Don't let yourself be confused by how much code this is - most of it is just wrapping. The core functionality is:
At start - create a BlockingQueue and share it between the two threads.
BlockingQueue<Integer> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
Thread pt = new Thread(new Producer(queue));
Thread ct = new Thread(new Consumer(queue));
When an event happens, post to the queue.
queue.add(i);
The event handler feeds off the queue.
while (!ended) {
try {
Integer i = queue.take();
Note that take here will block until an event is posted or an interrupt occurrs.

You can use
Thread.sleep(Long.MAX_VALUE); // more than the life of your computer
or
synchronized(this) {
wait();
}
or this wake on interrupt but doesn't throw an exception
LockSupport.park();
However a more elegant solution is likely to be to use an ExecutorService is designed to be a sleeping thread pool which wakes when you give it work to do.
ExecutorsService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
// when you want it to do something
executor.submit(this::process);
Note: you should consider how you want to handle exceptions. In the example in your question, an exception or error will kill the thread and it will stop running. In my example it won't kill the thread pool but the actual exception could be lost. For this reason I suggest you write it like this.
executor.submit(() -> {
try {
process();
} catch(Throwable t) {
LOGGER.warning(t);
}
});
Note: instead of just calling process and it having to figure out what you want to do you can write it like this.
doSomething(string, number, pojo);
That way you can see what data you expect the background thread to work on.
For comparison, here is the TwoThread example using the current thread as a producer and an Executor Service.
public class TwoThreadsJava5 {
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
System.out.println("TwoThreads:Test - Java 5.0 style");
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
final int finalI = i;
executor.submit(() -> {
try {
System.out.println(finalI);
} catch (Throwable t) {
t.printStackTrace();
}
});
}
executor.shutdown();
executor.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
}
}
And in Java 8 you could write
public class TwoThreadsJava8 {
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
System.out.println("TwoThreads:Test - Java 8 style");
IntStream.range(0, 1000)
.parallel()
.forEach(System.out::println);
}
}

Java synchronized block not working as expected

I am trying to implement a thread block using a map so that no more than one operation can be handled on a single customer at a time. This is talking to a web service and requires multiple steps to accomplish the full workflow. I need to be able to lock on a single customer at a time but allow other threads to execute without blocking the flow.
Here is my test cases to see how to get it working. What I am seeing is that the second thread cannot do get into the synchronized block of doSynchronizedSomething until the first thread has cleared. I thought this should work, but it is not working as expected.
Here are the results and you will notice that the millis are three seconds apart. I also checked to make sure that the CustomerLocks are not the same object in my test case. Is this possible?
Starting operation 123456 at time 1381173121688
Done with operation for 123456 at time 1381173124689
Starting operation 234567 at time 1381173124689
Done with operation for 234567 at time 1381173127690
Code
package simplethreadlock;
public class CustomerLock {
private String customerId;
public CustomerLock(String customerId) {
}
public String getCustomerId() {
return customerId;
}
public void setCustomerId(String customerId) {
this.customerId = customerId;
}
}
package simplethreadlock;
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap;
public class CustomerLockingMap {
private static ConcurrentHashMap<String, CustomerLock> locks = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, CustomerLock>();
public static CustomerLock aquireLock(String customerId) {
CustomerLock lock = locks.get(customerId);
if (lock == null) {
lock = new CustomerLock(customerId);
locks.put(customerId, lock);
}
return lock;
}
}
package simplethreadlock;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;
public class CutomerLockingTest {
#Test
public void testLock() throws InterruptedException {
final String customerId1 = "123456";
final String customerId2 = "234567";
final CustomerLock customer1Lock1 = CustomerLockingMap
.aquireLock(customerId1);
final CustomerLock customer1Lock2 = CustomerLockingMap
.aquireLock(customerId1);
final CustomerLock customer2Lock1 = CustomerLockingMap
.aquireLock(customerId2);
final CustomerLock customer2Lock2 = CustomerLockingMap
.aquireLock(customerId2);
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
Assert.assertNotEquals(customer1Lock1, customer2Lock1);
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
doSynchronziedSomething(customer1Lock1, customerId1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
doSynchronziedSomething(customer2Lock1, customerId2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
doSynchronziedSomething(customer1Lock2, customerId1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
doSynchronziedSomething(customer2Lock2, customerId2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
latch.await(8, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
private void doSynchronziedSomething(final CustomerLock lock, final String customerId) throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (lock) {
System.out.println("Starting operation " + customerId + " at time "
+ System.currentTimeMillis());
Thread.sleep(3000);
System.out.println("Done with operation for " + customerId
+ " at time " + System.currentTimeMillis());
}
}
}
Edit
Silly me it is Thread.start() but if you are looking at the example for help on this I did add the CountDownLatch so that the unit test will not exit before the threads have had time to finish.

someThread.run()
is not a way to start a thread. It only runs that thread's internal runnable within the current thread, before any subsequent lines. Use .start() to actually start the thread as a thread, and let the two threads(and main thread) run simultaneously.

Thread#run() is a normal synchronous method call. What you want is Thread#start() which executes a native call to start the OS thread.

How to pass parameter to an already running thread in java?

How to pass parameter to an already running thread in java -- not in the constructor, & probably without using wait() (possible ??)
Something similar to a comment in How can I pass a parameter to a Java Thread?
Do you mean passing a parameter to an already running thread ? Because all the current answers are about passing parameters to new threads... – Valentin Rocher May 18 '09 at 10:43
[edited]
yes, I was looking for something like the producer/consumer pattern.
I wanted something like a thread in which has the processing & is ready
for keyboard input. The other thread is just to monitor network and pass
on the received text to the processing thread.

Maybe what you really need is blocking queue.When you create the thread, you pass the blocking queue in and the thread should keep checking if there is any element in the queue. Outside the thread, you can put elements to the queue while the thread is "running". Blocking queue can prevent the thread from quit if their is nothing to do.
public class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
final BlockingQueue<String> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<String>();
Thread running = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
String data = queue.take();
//handle the data
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("Error occurred:" + e);
}
}
}
});
running.start();
// Send data to the running thread
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
queue.offer("data " + i);
}
}
}

The "other thread" will have its own life, so you can't really communicate with it / pass parameters to it, unless it actively reads what you gives to it.
A thread which you allows you to communicate with it typically reads data from some buffered queue.
Have a look at ArrayBlockingQueue for instance, and read up on the Consumer-Producer pattern.

public class T1 implements Runnable {
//parameter of thread T1
public static AtomicBoolean flag = new AtomicBoolean();
#Override
public void run() {
}
}
public class T2 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
//parameter to an already running thread
T1.flag.set(true);
}
}

What about such way:
class TestRun implements Runnable
{
private int testInt = -1;
public void setInt(int i)
{
this.testInt = i;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
while (!isFinishing())
{
System.out.println("Working thread, int : " + testInt);
try
{
Thread.sleep(2500);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
.....
TestRun first = new TestRun();
TestRun second = new TestRun();
(new Thread(first)).start();
(new Thread(second)).start();
try
{
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
}
first.setInt(101);
second.setInt(102);

In Java: how can I make thread watch over another thread?

Sorry if the question is quite simple. I am a beginner.
I have to create thread that calulates something, while the first thread works the other one have to measure if the first thread calculate the function in specified time. If not, it has to throw exception. Else it returns the answer.

I'd take the java.util.concurrent components - simple example
public void myMethod() {
// select some executor strategy
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
Future f = executor.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
heresTheMethodToBeExecuted();
}
});
try {
f.get(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// do something clever
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
// do something clever
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
// do something clever
}
}

Have your thread notify a synchronization object when it is done and have your other thread wait x number of milliseconds for it to finish.
public class Main {
private static final Object mThreadLock = new Object();
static class DoTaskThread extends Thread {
public void run() {
try {
int wait = new Random().nextInt(10000);
System.out.println("Waiting " + wait + " ms");
Thread.sleep(wait);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
synchronized (mThreadLock) {
mThreadLock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
/**
* #param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
synchronized (mThreadLock) {
DoTaskThread thread = new DoTaskThread();
thread.start();
try {
// Only wait 2 seconds for the thread to finish
mThreadLock.wait(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
if (thread.isAlive()) {
throw new RuntimeException("thread took too long");
} else {
System.out.println("Thread finished in time");
}
}
}
}

join is a lot simpler than using a lock.
join (millis)
Waits at most millis milliseconds
for this thread to die. A timeout of 0
means to wait forever.
Example code:
Thread calcThread = new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
//some calculation
}
});
calcThread.start();
//wait at most 2secs for the calcThread to finish.
calcThread.join(2000);
//throw an exception if the calcThread hasn't completed.
if(calcThread.isAlive()){
throw new SomeException("calcThread is still running!");
}

Have a look at http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ExecutorService.html#awaitTermination(long,%20java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit) which allows you to handle this without dealing with thread synchronization yourself.