Develop Reference

ShutdownNow on ExecutorService does not work properly

I'm wiriting a Spring Boot app for simulating an events generator of syslog. With a rest call I have to start the events generation and with another rest call I have to stop it. To achieve that, I created an ExecutorService with a single thread with a for loop inside the Runnable, but it does not stop at all. I tried to break the for loop with Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted after the shutdownNow() but it seems that it does not set the IsInterrupted to true. If I use the loop boolean, of course the loop stop but I can't create new thread with a 500 server error.
That's my code:
#Service
#Scope(value = ConfigurableBeanFactory.SCOPE_SINGLETON)
public class EventService {
final static Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(EventService.class);
private ConfigReader configReader;
private static ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
private EventsGenerator eventsGen;
private String test;
public EventService(ConfigReader configReader) {
this.configReader = configReader;
}
public void init(byte[] fileConfig) throws IOException {
configReader.read(fileConfig);
eventsGen = new EventsGenerator(configReader,configReader.getConfig().getProtocol());
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
public void run() {
eventsGen.stop();
try {
executor.awaitTermination(10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
logger.error(e.getMessage());
}
}
});
executor.execute(eventsGen);
executor.shutdown();
/*
try {
executor.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS );
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
logger.error(e.getMessage());
}
*/
}
public void shutdownService() {
eventsGen.stop();
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
Run method of eventsGenerator:
#Override
public void run() {
//other things
int it;
for(i=0;i<max;i++) {
try {
if(Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
break;
}
if(!loop){
break;
}
NStringTemplate template = getNextTemplate();
String message = template.buildString(context);
if(config.getEndTime() != null) {
Date currentTime = context.getTime(false);
if(currentTime.after(config.getEndTime())) {
logger.info("L'endTime è stato superato");
break;
}
}
//other business logic
}catch(Exception exc){}
}
public void stop(){
setLoop(false);
}

JAVA pass a method from outside class to the ThreadPool.submit()

I don't have previous experience with JAVA's concurrency, but ever done the same in C#.
My task
To create a "worker" class for easy multi-threading (creating continuous threads) managing in my applications.
what i want to have as result(usage example):
Worker worker = new Worker();
worker.threadCount = 10;
worker.doWork(myMethod);
worker.Stop();
to be able to use it in any class in my app, accepting 'void' methods as 'worker.doWork(myMethod);' argument.
What did i done from my researches on question:
class Worker
package commons.Threading;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class Worker {
static Boolean IsRunning = true;
public static int threadCount = 2;
static ExecutorService threadPool = new ErrorReportingThreadPoolExecutor(threadCount);
public void doWork(**argument method**) throws IOException, InterruptedException {
while (IsRunning) {
threadPool.submit(new Runnable() {
**argument method**
});
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
public static void Stop(){
IsRunning = false;
threadPool.shutdown(); // Disable new tasks from being submitted
try {
// Wait a while for existing tasks to terminate
if (!threadPool.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS)) {
threadPool.shutdownNow(); // Cancel currently executing tasks
// Wait a while for tasks to respond to being cancelled
if (!threadPool.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS))
System.err.println("Pool did not terminate");
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
// (Re-)Cancel if current thread also interrupted
threadPool.shutdownNow();
// Preserve interrupt status
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
ErrorReportingThreadPoolExecutor
package commons.Threading;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class ErrorReportingThreadPoolExecutor extends ThreadPoolExecutor {
public ErrorReportingThreadPoolExecutor(int nThreads) {
super(nThreads, nThreads,
0, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS,
new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>());
}
#Override
protected void afterExecute(Runnable task, Throwable thrown) {
super.afterExecute(task, thrown);
if (thrown != null) {
// an unexpected exception happened inside ThreadPoolExecutor
thrown.printStackTrace();
}
if (task instanceof Future<?>) {
// try getting result
// if an exception happened in the job, it'll be thrown here
try {
Object result = ((Future<?>)task).get();
} catch (CancellationException e) {
// the job get canceled (may happen at any state)
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
// some uncaught exception happened during execution
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// current thread is interrupted
// ignore, just re-throw
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
// replace
// ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
// with
ExecutorService threadPool = new ErrorReportingThreadPoolExecutor(2);
while (true) {
threadPool.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
System.out.println("Job is running...");
if (Math.random() < 0.5) {
int q = 1 / 0;
}
System.out.println("Job finished.");
}
});
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
}
So, the question is - how do i pass 'void' method from outside class here threadPool.submit(new Runnable() { here });

You could pass the Runnable itself is a parameter,
public void doWork(Runnable runnable) throws IOException, InterruptedException {
while (IsRunning) {
threadPool.submit(runnable);
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
Runnable is a functional interface,it has a single method run that takes no-param and returns void, and hence you can use it as a function.
Runnable runnable = new Runnable(){
public void run(){
// do work
}
};
doWork(runnable);
You can express it more concisely if you are on Java 1.8
Runnable runnable = ()->{/**do work*/};
doWork(runnable);

How to implement synchronous method timeouts in Java?

I have an synchronous execution path which needs to either complete or timeout within a given time frame.
Let's say I have a class with a main() method in which I invoke method A(), which in-turn calls B(), and that in-turn calls C(), of the same or different classes, all synchronous, and without using an external resource like database , webservice, or file system (so not blocking IO, it's more like a CPU or memory intensive computation).
How do I code for its timeout in Java? I have looked at TimerTask but that is more of making the flow async and for scheduling tasks. Any other suggestions?

You should use ExecutorService to do that
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Future<String> future = executor.submit(new Callable() {
public String call() throws Exception {
//do operations you want
return "OK";
}
});
try {
System.out.println(future.get(2, TimeUnit.SECONDS)); //timeout is in 2 seconds
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
System.err.println("Timeout");
}
executor.shutdownNow();

You can run a parallel thread which will wait for the specified timeout and interrupt the current thread, and then run A(). However a, b and c must be interruptible, that is to check periodically current thread interrupted flag and throw InterruptedException, otherwise it wont work
final Thread current = Thread.currentThread();
Thread timer = new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
current.interrupt();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// timer stopped
}
};
};
try {
A(); // this throws InterruptedException if interrupted by timer
timer.interrupt(); // no timeout lets stop the timer
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// timeout
}

You can't do an synchronous call with a timeout but you can emulate it using a second thread. This is an example to do that:
package com.ardevco.example;
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException;
class ExceptionThrower {
public static <R> R throwUnchecked(Throwable t) {
return ExceptionThrower.<RuntimeException, R> trhow0(t);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private static <E extends Throwable, R> R trhow0(Throwable t) throws E {
throw (E) t;
}
}
class TestApplicationException1 extends Exception {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
public TestApplicationException1(String string) {
super(string);
}
};
class TestApplicationException2 extends Exception {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
public TestApplicationException2(String string) {
super(string);
}
};
class TestApplicationTimeoutException extends Exception {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
public TestApplicationTimeoutException(String string) {
super(string);
};
}
public class SynchronousTimeoutTester {
public static final long SYNC_METHOD_TIMEOUT_IN_MILLISECONDS = 2000L;
private final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
public static void main(String[] args) {
SynchronousTimeoutTester tester = new SynchronousTimeoutTester();
/* call the method asynchronously 10 times */
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
try {
System.out.println("Result sync call: " + tester.getAsynchTest());
}
catch (TestApplicationException1 e) {
System.out.println("catched as TestApplicationException1: " + e);
}
catch (TestApplicationException2 e) {
System.out.println("catched as TestApplicationException2: " + e);
}
catch (TestApplicationTimeoutException e) {
System.out.println("catched as TestApplicationTimeoutException: " + e);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("catched as InterruptedException: " + e);
}
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("catched as Exception: " + e);
}
}
tester.shutdown();
}
private void shutdown() {
executorService.shutdown();
try {
executorService.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Error stopping threadpool:" + e);
}
}
private Integer testAsynch() throws TestApplicationException1, TestApplicationException2, InterruptedException {
Random random = new Random();
switch (random.nextInt(10)) {
case 0:
return 0;
case 1:
throw new TestApplicationException1("thrown TestApplicationException1");
case 2:
throw new TestApplicationException2("thrown TestApplicationException2");
case 3:
Thread.sleep(10000L);
return -1;
case 4:
throw new RuntimeException("thrown Exception");
default:
return random.nextInt(10);
}
}
private Integer getAsynchTest() throws TestApplicationException1, TestApplicationException2, Exception {
Integer dummy = null;
Future<Integer> testAsynchF = executorService.submit(
new Callable<Integer>() {
public Integer call() throws Exception {
return testAsynch();
}
});
try {
dummy = testAsynchF.get(SynchronousTimeoutTester.SYNC_METHOD_TIMEOUT_IN_MILLISECONDS, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}
catch (ExecutionException e1) {
System.out.println("in getAsynchTest: ExecutionException: " + e1);
ExceptionThrower.throwUnchecked(e1.getCause());
}
catch (TimeoutException e1) {
System.out.println("in getAsynchTest: TimeoutException: " + e1);
throw new TestApplicationTimeoutException("TimeoutException" + e1);
}
catch (InterruptedException e1) {
System.out.println("in getAsynchTest: InterruptedException: " + e1);
throw new Exception(e1);
}
return dummy;
}
}

See also this post The approach is let your application care of timeout inside its logic. For that you can define some timer class and special checking method, e.g.:
public class TimeoutApp {
MyTimer timer;
Thread timerThread;
public static void main(String... args) {
new TimeoutApp().execute();
}
private void execute() {
try {
startTimer(1000);
action1();
checkTimeout();
action2();
checkTimeout();
action3();
stopTimer();
} catch (MyTimeoutException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted on timeout!");
// ...clearing code if needed
System.exit(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted by exception!");
// ...clearing code if needed
e.printStackTrace();
System.exit(1);
}
}
private void action1() throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(600);
System.out.println("action 1");
}
private void action2() throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(500);
System.out.println("action 2");
}
private void action3() {
System.out.println("action 3");
}
private void checkTimeout() throws MyTimeoutException {
if (timer.isTimeoutReached()) {
throw new MyTimeoutException();
}
}
private void startTimer(long timeout) {
timer = new MyTimer(timeout);
timerThread = new Thread(timer);
timerThread.start();
}
private void stopTimer() {
timerThread.interrupt();
}
private class MyTimer implements Runnable {
private long timeout;
private boolean timeoutReached = false;
public MyTimer(long timeout) {
this.timeout = timeout;
}
public void run() {
long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
while (!timeoutReached && !Thread.interrupted()) {
if ((System.currentTimeMillis() - time) > timeout) {
timeoutReached = true;
}
}
}
public boolean isTimeoutReached() {
return timeoutReached;
}
}
private class MyTimeoutException extends Exception {
}
}

Wait until child threads completed : Java

Problem description : -
Step 1: Take input FILE_NAME from user at main thread.
Step 2: Perform 10 operations on that file (i.e count chars, count lines etc.. ), and all those 10 operations must be in septate threads. It means there must be 10 child threads.
Step 3: Main thread waits until all those child threads completed.
Step 4: Print result.
What I did :-
I did a sample code with 3 threads. I don't want file operation code from your side.
public class ThreadTest {
// This is object to synchronize on.
private static final Object waitObject = ThreadTest.class;
// Your boolean.
private static boolean boolValue = false;
public final Result result = new Result();
public static void main(String[] args) {
final ThreadTest mytest = new ThreadTest();
System.out.println("main started");
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Inside thread");
//Int initialiser
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Setting integer value");
mytest.result.setIntValue(346635);
System.out.println("Integer value seted");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
//String initialiser
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Setting string value");
mytest.result.setStringValue("Hello hi");
System.out.println("String value seted");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
//Boolean initialiser
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Setting boolean value");
mytest.result.setBoolValue(true);
System.out.println("Boolean value seted");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
System.out.println("Thread is finished");
//Notify to main thread
synchronized (ThreadTest.waitObject) {
ThreadTest.boolValue = true;
ThreadTest.waitObject.notifyAll();
}
}
}).start();
try {
synchronized (ThreadTest.waitObject) {
while (!ThreadTest.boolValue) {
ThreadTest.waitObject.wait();
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("main finished");
System.out.println("Result is : " + mytest.result.toString());
}
}
Problem :-
My above code is not giving correct answer. How can I do that?
Alternate solutions:
CountDownLatch class does the same. But I don't want to use that class.
I looked this similar solution and I want to use methods of Thread only.

You can do:
Thread t = new Thread() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("text");
// other complex code
}
};
t.start();
t.join();
This way you will wait until the thread finishes and just then continue. You can join multiple threads:
for (Thread thread : threads) {
thread.join();
}

I would recommend looking at the Executors framework first, and then look into the CompletionService.
Then you can write something like this:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(maxThreadsToUse);
CompletionService completion = new ExecutorCompletionService(executor);
for (each sub task) {
completion.submit(new SomeTaskYouCreate())
}
// wait for all tasks to complete.
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfSubTasks; ++i) {
completion.take(); // will block until the next sub task has completed.
}
executor.shutdown();

In Java 8 a far better approach is to use parallelStream()
Note: it is far easier to see exactly what these background tasks are doing.
public static void main(String[] args) {
Stream.<Runnable>of(
() -> mytest.result.setIntValue(346635),
() -> mytest.result.setStringValue("Hello hi"),
() -> mytest.result.setBoolValue(true) )
.parallel()
.forEach(Runnable::run);
System.out.println("main finished");
System.out.println("Result is : " + mytest.result.toString());
}
I took out the debug information and the sleep as these don't alter the outcome.

You may want to choose CountDownLatch from java.util.concurrent. From JavaDocs:
A synchronization aid that allows one or more threads to wait until a
set of operations being performed in other threads completes.
Sample code:
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
public class Test {
private final ChildThread[] children;
private final CountDownLatch latch;
public Test() {
this.children = new ChildThread[4];
this.latch = new CountDownLatch(children.length);
children[0] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 1");
children[1] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 2");
children[2] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 3");
children[3] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 4");
}
public void run() {
startChildThreads();
waitForChildThreadsToComplete();
}
private void startChildThreads() {
Thread[] threads = new Thread[children.length];
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
ChildThread child = children[i];
threads[i] = new Thread(child);
threads[i].start();
}
}
private void waitForChildThreadsToComplete() {
try {
latch.await();
System.out.println("All child threads have completed.");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private class ChildThread implements Runnable {
private final String name;
private final CountDownLatch latch;
protected ChildThread(CountDownLatch latch, String name) {
this.latch = latch;
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// Implementation
System.out.println(name + " has completed.");
} finally {
latch.countDown();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test test = new Test();
test.run();
}
}
Output:
Task 1 has completed.
Task 4 has completed.
Task 3 has completed.
Task 2 has completed.
All child threads have completed.

There are many ways to approach this. Consider CountDownLatch:
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
public class WorkerTest {
final int NUM_JOBS = 3;
final CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(NUM_JOBS);
final Object mutex = new Object();
int workData = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
WorkerTest workerTest = new WorkerTest();
workerTest.go();
workerTest.awaitAndReportData();
}
private void go() {
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_JOBS; i++) {
final int fI = i;
Thread t = new Thread() {
public void run() {
synchronized(mutex) {
workData++;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(fI * 1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
countDownLatch.countDown();
}
};
t.start();
}
}
private void awaitAndReportData() throws InterruptedException {
countDownLatch.await();
synchronized(mutex) {
System.out.println("All workers done. workData=" + workData);
}
}
}

Check if all child threads are dead, every n seconds. Simple, yet effective method:
boolean allDead=false;
while(! allDead){
allDead=true;
for (int t = 0; t < threadCount; t++)
if(threads[t].isAlive()) allDead=false;
Thread.sleep(2000);
}

Does this need explicit synchronization?

I have two threads, and I want to make sure I am doing the synchronization correctly on the LinkedBlockingQueue.. Is this correct? Or is the explicit synchronization on (messageToCommsQueue) not necessary?
Declaration:
private LinkedBlockingQueue<BaseMessage> messagesToCommsQueue;
Method one:
private void startOperationModeStatusMessageExecutor() {
ScheduledExecutorService operationModeStatusExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
operationModeStatusExecutor.scheduleAtFixedRate((new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
ModeStatusMessage commsOperateMsg;
commsOperateMsg = MessageFactory.getModeStatusMessage(status.ordinal());
synchronized (messagesToCommsQueue) {
messagesToCommsQueue.add(commsOperateMsg);
}
}
}), 0, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
Method Two:
Executor commsSenderExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
commsSenderExecutor.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (getStatus().equals(ModeStatus.INITIATE) || getStatus().equals(ModeStatus.OPERATE)) {
BaseMessage m = null;
try {
synchronized (messagesToCommsQueue) {
m = messagesToCommsQueue.take();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
});

Yes, it's not necessary. JavaDoc says that:
BlockingQueue implementations are thread-safe.