I am trying to process some messages that I get from an MQ infrastructure.I have two blocking queues,sharedQueue and pubQueue. The sharedqueue gets filled up with the messages that I get from the MQ infrastructure as below.It will put the messages to sharedQueue.
client.setCallback(new CallBack("inst", sharedQueue));
The messagemanipulator thread will read from the sharedQueue , process it and put the response to pubQueue for later publishing.
new MessageManipulatorThread(sharedQueue,pubQueue).run();
The publisher thread will take messages from pubQueue and publish it to the MQ infrastructure.
new PublisherThread(pubQueue).run();
Below is the full code :
public class ArrayBlockingQueueExample {
private BlockingQueue<String> sharedQueue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(64);
private BlockingQueue<String> pubQueue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(64);
public static void main(String[] args) throws MqttException, Exception {
new ArrayBlockingQueueExample().startThreads();
}
public void startThreads() throws MqttException, Exception{
MqttClient client = new MQTTClientFactory().getInstance();
client.setCallback(new CallBack("inst", sharedQueue));
new MessageManipulatorThread(sharedQueue,pubQueue).run();
new PublisherThread(pubQueue).run();
}
public MessageManipulatorThread( BlockingQueue<String> sharedQueue , BlockingQueue<String> pubQueue){
this.sharedQueue = sharedQueue;
this.pubQueue = pubQueue;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
String msg = sharedQueue.take();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + "manipulator runnning => "+msg);
pubQueue.put(msg);
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class PublisherThread implements Runnable {
private BlockingQueue<String> sharedQueue;
public PublisherThread(BlockingQueue<String> sharedQueue){
this.sharedQueue = sharedQueue;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
System.out.println("Running pub");
try {
System.out.println("pub=>"+sharedQueue.take() );
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
The problem is new PublisherThread(pubQueue).run(); never works.I am guessing this is a thread synchronization issue.The pubQueue is supposed to wait till it has any data filled up by the MessageManipulatorThread, but it doesnt look like that.The PublisherThread is waiting upon the pubQueue to be free, but it never becomes free ! , is there anything else I should do for this ? Any help is much appreciated.
You're using Runnable.run() instead of Thread.start(), so this:
new MessageManipulatorThread(sharedQueue,pubQueue).run();
new PublisherThread(pubQueue).run();
Won't work. That's because run() actually runs the method of the runnable inside the current thread instead of creating a new thread and executing it separately.
Instead, do this:
new Thread(new MessageManipulatorThread(sharedQueue,pubQueue), "MessageManipulatorThread").start();
new Thread(new PublisherThread(pubQueue), "PublisherThread").start();
Edit:
fge made the following comment in the question:
Why don't you use an ExecutorService instead of doing its job by hand?
To clarify what he means, he means using an ExecutorService to process the messages for the pubQueue instead of creating a thread to pull the messages and processing them manually. That code would look like this:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
new Thread(new MessageManipulatorThread(sharedQueue, executor), "MessageManipulatorThread").start();
Then the MessageManipulatorThread class would change to:
public class MessageManipulatorThread implements Runnable {
private BlockingQueue<String> sharedQueue;
private ExecutorService executor;
public MessageManipulatorThread(BlockingQueue<String> sharedQueue, ExecutorService executor){
this.sharedQueue = sharedQueue;
this.executor = executor;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
String msg = sharedQueue.take();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + "manipulator runnning => "+msg);
executor.execute(new PublisherThread(msg));
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
You'd then change PublisherThread so that it uses processes only the single message that gets passed to it. This is another approach to what you're trying to do.
This approach also allows some flexibility. Using the other approach, PublisherThread can only process one message at a time (synchronous). Using the ExecutorService interface allows you to change the implementation, which can allow it to process more than one message at a time (asynchronous) simply by changing this:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
To this:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
That statement allows the executor to start up to 10 threads, which means up to 10 messages can be processed at once. See the Executors class for more ways of creating ExecutorService implementations.
These two lines are your problem:
new MessageManipulatorThread(sharedQueue,pubQueue).run();
new PublisherThread(pubQueue).run();
You should first have your "Thread" classes extend Thread instead of just implementing Runnable, then call this instead:
new MessageManipulatorThread(sharedQueue,pubQueue).start();
new PublisherThread(pubQueue).start();
As written, your code doesn't actually spawn any new threads, so the first run() method never returns and your second run() method never gets called.
Related
I'm using a task that creates other tasks. Those tasks in turn may or may not create subsequent tasks. I don't know beforehand how many tasks will be created in total. At some point, no more tasks will be created, and all the task will finish.
When the last task is done, I must do some extra stuff.
Which threading mechanism should be used? I've read about CountDownLatch, Cyclic Barrier and Phaser but none seem to fit.
I've also tried using ExecutorService, but I've encountered some issues such as the inability to execute something at the end, and you can see my attempt below:
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import static java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS;
public class Issue {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
var count = new AtomicInteger(1);
var executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
class Task implements Runnable {
final int id = count.getAndIncrement();
#Override
public void run() {
try {
MILLISECONDS.sleep((long)(Math.random() * 1000L + 1000L));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Do nothing
}
if (id < 5) {
executor.submit(new Task());
executor.submit(new Task());
}
System.out.println(id);
}
}
executor.execute(new Task());
executor.shutdown();
// executor.awaitTermination(20, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
System.out.println("Hello");
}
}
This outputs an exception because tasks are added after shutdown() is called, but the expected output would be akin to:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Hello
Which threading mechanism can help me do that?
It seems pretty tricky. If there is even a single task that's either in the queue or currently executing, then since you can't say whether or not it will spawn another task, you have no way to know how long it may run for. It may be the start of a chain of tasks that takes another 2 hours.
I think all the information you'd need to achieve this is encapsulated by the executor implementations. You need to know what's running and what's in the queue.
I think you're unfortunately looking at having to write your own executor. It needn't be complicated and it doesn't have to conform to the JDK's interfaces if you don't want it to. Just something that maintains a thread pool and a queue of tasks. Add the ability to attach listeners to the executor. When the queue is empty and there are no actively executing tasks then you can notify the listeners.
Here's a quick code sketch.
class MyExecutor
{
private final AtomicLong taskId = new AtomicLong();
private final Map<Long, Runnable> idToQueuedTask = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
private final AtomicLong runningTasks = new AtomicLong();
private final ExecutorService delegate = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
public void submit(Runnable task) {
long id = taskId.incrementAndGet();
final Runnable wrapped = () -> {
taskStarted(id);
try {
task.run();
}
finally {
taskEnded();
}
};
idToQueuedTask.put(id, wrapped);
delegate.submit(wrapped);
}
private void taskStarted(long id) {
idToQueuedTask.remove(id);
runningTasks.incrementAndGet();
}
private void taskEnded() {
final long numRunning = runningTasks.decrementAndGet();
if (numRunning == 0 && idToQueuedTask.isEmpty()) {
System.out.println("Done, time to notify listeners");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyExecutor executor = new MyExecutor();
executor.submit(() -> {
System.out.println("Parent task");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
catch (Exception e) {}
executor.submit(() -> {
System.out.println("Child task");
});
});
}
}
If you change your ExecutorService to this:
ThreadPoolExecutor executor = (ThreadPoolExecutor) Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
You could then use the count functions to wait:
while(executor.getTaskCount() > executor.getCompletedTaskCount())
{
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(10L);
}
executor.shutdown();
System.out.println("Hello");
This code seems to work fine so far in testing. However I am new at multithreading and want to know if this code is ideal, since I know there is a lot of "donts" regarding concurrency.
Is there a better way to make an executor for queued Runnables on a single thread? This is my first time making one so I feel inclined to believe something could be better.
public class ExplosionExecutor{
private static List<Runnable> queue= new ArrayList<Runnable>();
private static Thread thread= new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while(true){
Runnable[] queuedump;
synchronized (queue) {
if(queue.size()==0){
try {
queue.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e){e.printStackTrace();}
}
queuedump= queue.toArray(new Runnable[0]);
queue.clear();
}
for(Runnable r : queuedump)
r.run();
}
}
}, "Nuke Explosions");
static{
thread.start();
}
public static void execute(Runnable command) {
synchronized (queue) {
queue.add(command);
queue.notify();
}
}
}
This is okay - ish.
It's best not to reinvent the wheel.
1) There are blocking queues which have methods to wait for new items and are already synchronized:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final BlockingQueue<Runnable> r = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
final Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
r.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
}
}
}
});
r.add(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//do stuff
}
});
}
2) There is the ExecutorService API which encapsulates all this behaviour:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final ExecutorService es = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
es.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//do stuff
}
});
}
3) If you want to check the success of the submitted task and/or wait for a sumbitted task to finish you cannot do that using your API. With the ExecutorService you can do this very easily.
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final ExecutorService es = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final Future<?> f = es.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//do stuff
}
});
try {
//wait
f.get();
} catch (ExecutionException ex) {
//there was an exeception in the task
}
}
A final note is that the way you have implemented your code there is no way to stop the consumer thread.
In my first example you would need to manually call t.interrupt() and because of my implementation this would case the thread to exit. In the second/third examples you would need to call ExecutorService.shutdown() to stop the consumer threads.
If you do not stop the threads then your program will not exit unless they are daemon.
Why are you making your own implementation? Java has a built-in ExecutorService that can run Runnables on a single thread http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Executors.html
//runs all Runnables in a single thread, one at a time
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
executor.submit(runnable);
Here are few improvements... Of-course if you use BlockingQueue/ExecutorService we don't need to worry about synchronization/concurrency.
One main issue in the code is: "r.run()" instead of new Thread(r).start().
Use ConcurrentLinkedQueue data structure which is Thread safe.
You can offer to lock/notify on any static obj/class obj, need not be on the queue, as queue is already thread safe.
Queue to Array conversion is not needed. iterate for queue.poll().
Also you can also use concurrent locks API (ReentrantLock or Condition classes) instead of synchronized/wait/notify.
theexamtime.com
I have to do schoolwork, and I have some code done, but got some questions:
must create a boss-workers application in java.
I have these classes: Main WorkerThread BossThread Job
Basically what I want to do is, that BossThread holds a BlockingQueue and workers go there and look for Jobs.
Question 1:
At the moment I start 5 WorkingThreads and 1 BossThread.
Main:
Collection<WorkerThread> workers = new ArrayList<WorkerThread>();
for(int i = 1; i < 5; i++) {
WorkerThread worker = new WorkerThread();
workers.add(worker);
}
BossThread thread = new BossThread(jobs, workers);
thread.run();
BossThread:
private BlockingQueue<Job> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Job>(100);
private Collection<WorkerThread> workers;
public BossThread(Set<Job> jobs, Collection<WorkerThread> workers) {
for(Job job : jobs) {
queue.add(job);
}
for(WorkerThread worker : workers) {
worker.setQueue(queue);
}
this.workers = workers;
}
Is this normal, or I should create WorkerThreads in my BossThread ?
Question 2:
As you see I am giving the queue to each WorkerThread , is that reasonable or I could store the queue only in one place?
Question 3:
Must I keep my BossThread running somehow, just to wait if user adds more stuff to queue? And how I keep WorkerThreads running, to look for jobs from queue?
Any overall suggestions or design flaws or suggestions?
public class WorkerThread implements Runnable {
private BlockingQueue<Job> queue;
public WorkerThread() {
}
public void run() {
try {
queue.take().start();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void setQueue(BlockingQueue<Job> queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
}
Firstly, one important mistake I noticed:
BossThread thread = new BossThread(jobs, workers));
thread.run();
Runnables must be passed to a Thread object and threads are started with start, not run. By calling run you get sequential execution on the same thread. So:
Thread thread = new Thread(new BossThread(jobs, workers)));
thread.start();
Secondly, unless you absolutely must use BlockingQueue and explicit threads I would instead use ExecutorService. It neatly encapsulates a blocking work queue and a team of workers (whose size you can set). It's basically what you're doing but much simpler to use:
class Job implements Runnable {
public void run() {
// work
}
}
...
// create thread pool with 5 threads and blocking queue
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
// submit some work
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
exec.submit(new Job());
}
And that's it! All the put and take stuff is handled by the executor automatically.
I'm looking to write some concurrent code which will process an event. This processing can take a long time.
Whilst that event is processing it should record incoming events and then process the last incoming events when it is free to run again. (The other events can be thrown away). This is a little bit like a FILO queue but I only need to store one element in the queue.
Ideally I would like to plug in my new Executor into my event processing architecture shown below.
public class AsyncNode<I, O> extends AbstractNode<I, O> {
private static final Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(AsyncNode.class);
private Executor executor;
public AsyncNode(EventHandler<I, O> handler, Executor executor) {
super(handler);
this.executor = executor;
}
#Override
public void emit(O output) {
if (output != null) {
for (EventListener<O> node : children) {
node.handle(output);
}
}
}
#Override
public void handle(final I input) {
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try{
emit(handler.process(input));
}catch (Exception e){
log.error("Exception occured whilst processing input." ,e);
throw e;
}
}
});
}
}
I wouldn't do either. I would have an AtomicReference to the event you want to process and add a task to process it in a destructive way.
final AtomicReference<Event> eventRef =
public void processEvent(Event event) {
eventRef.set(event);
executor.submit(new Runnable() {
public vodi run() {
Event e = eventRef.getAndSet(null);
if (e == null) return;
// process event
}
}
}
This will only ever process the next event when the executor is free, without customising the executor or queue (which can be used for other things)
This also scales to having keyed events i.e. you want to process the last event for a key.
I think the key to this is the "discard policy" you need to apply to your Executor. If you only want to handle the latest task then you need a queue size of one and a "discarding policy" of throw away the oldest. Here is an example of an Executor that will do this
Executor latestTaskExecutor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(1, 1, // Single threaded
30L, TimeUnit.SECONDS, // Keep alive, not really important here
new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(1), // Single element queue
new ThreadPoolExecutor.DiscardOldestPolicy()); // When new work is submitted discard oldest
Then when your tasks come in just submit them to this executor, if there is already a queued job it will be replaced with the new one
latestTaskExecutor.execute(() -> doUpdate()));
Here is a example app showing this working
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.Executor;
import java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class LatestUpdate {
private static final Executor latestTaskExecutor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(1, 1, // Single threaded
30L, TimeUnit.SECONDS, // Keep alive, not really important here
new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(1), // Single element queue
new ThreadPoolExecutor.DiscardOldestPolicy()); // When new work is submitted discard oldest
private static final AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(0);
private static final Random random = new Random();
public static void main(String[] args) {
LatestUpdate latestUpdate = new LatestUpdate();
latestUpdate.run();
}
private void doUpdate(int number) {
System.out.println("Latest number updated is: " + number);
try { // Wait a random amount of time up to 5 seconds. Processing the update takes time...
Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(5000));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void run() {
// Updates a counter every second and schedules an update event
Thread counterUpdater = new Thread(() -> {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000L); // Wait one second
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
counter.incrementAndGet();
// Schedule this update will replace any existing update waiting
latestTaskExecutor.execute(() -> doUpdate(counter.get()));
System.out.println("New number is: " + counter.get());
}
});
counterUpdater.start(); // Run the thread
}
}
This also covers the case for GUIs where once updates stop arriving you want the GUI to become eventually consistent with the last event received.
public class LatestTaskExecutor implements Executor {
private final AtomicReference<Runnable> lastTask =new AtomicReference<>();
private final Executor executor;
public LatestTaskExecutor(Executor executor) {
super();
this.executor = executor;
}
#Override
public void execute(Runnable command) {
lastTask.set(command);
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
Runnable task=lastTask.getAndSet(null);
if(task!=null){
task.run();
}
}
});
}
}
#RunWith( MockitoJUnitRunner.class )
public class LatestTaskExecutorTest {
#Mock private Executor executor;
private LatestTaskExecutor latestExecutor;
#Before
public void setup(){
latestExecutor=new LatestTaskExecutor(executor);
}
#Test
public void testRunSingleTask() {
Runnable run=mock(Runnable.class);
latestExecutor.execute(run);
ArgumentCaptor<Runnable> captor=ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Runnable.class);
verify(executor).execute(captor.capture());
captor.getValue().run();
verify(run).run();
}
#Test
public void discardsIntermediateUpdates(){
Runnable run=mock(Runnable.class);
Runnable run2=mock(Runnable.class);
latestExecutor.execute(run);
latestExecutor.execute(run2);
ArgumentCaptor<Runnable> captor=ArgumentCaptor.forClass(Runnable.class);
verify(executor,times(2)).execute(captor.capture());
for (Runnable runnable:captor.getAllValues()){
runnable.run();
}
verify(run2).run();
verifyNoMoreInteractions(run);
}
}
This answer is a modified version of the one from DD which minimzes submission of superfluous tasks.
An atomic reference is used to keep track of the latest event. A custom task is submitted to the queue for potentially processing an event, only the task that gets to read the latest event actually goes ahead and does useful work before clearing out the atomic reference to null. When other tasks get a chance to run and find no event is available to process, they just do nothing and pass away silently. Submitting superfluous tasks are avoided by tracking the number of available tasks in the queue. If there is at least one task pending in the queue, we can avoid submitting the task as the event will be handled when an already queued task is dequeued.
import java.util.concurrent.Executor;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference;
public class EventExecutorService implements Executor {
private final Executor executor;
// the field which keeps track of the latest available event to process
private final AtomicReference<Runnable> latestEventReference = new AtomicReference<>();
private final AtomicInteger activeTaskCount = new AtomicInteger(0);
public EventExecutorService(final Executor executor) {
this.executor = executor;
}
#Override
public void execute(final Runnable eventTask) {
// update the latest event
latestEventReference.set(eventTask);
// read count _after_ updating event
final int activeTasks = activeTaskCount.get();
if (activeTasks == 0) {
// there is definitely no other task to process this event, create a new task
final Runnable customTask = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// decrement the count for available tasks _before_ reading event
activeTaskCount.decrementAndGet();
// find the latest available event to process
final Runnable currentTask = latestEventReference.getAndSet(null);
if (currentTask != null) {
// if such an event exists, process it
currentTask.run();
} else {
// somebody stole away the latest event. Do nothing.
}
}
};
// increment tasks count _before_ submitting task
activeTaskCount.incrementAndGet();
// submit the new task to the queue for processing
executor.execute(customTask);
}
}
}
Though I like James Mudd's solution but it still enqueues a second task while previous is running which might be undesirable. If you want to always ignore/discard arriving task if previous is not completed you can make some wrapper like this:
public class DiscardingSubmitter {
private final ExecutorService es = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
private Future<?> future = CompletableFuture.completedFuture(null); //to avoid null check
public void submit(Runnable r){
if (future.isDone()) {
future = es.submit(r);
}else {
//Task skipped, log if you want
}
}
}
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();
}
}
}