Develop Reference

Creating a Thread that does not exit

I was wondering what the best way to create a Java Thread that does not terminate.
Currently, I basically have a "Runner" that basically looks like:
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; ++i) {
pool.submit(new Task());
}
pool.shutdown();
and Task looks something like this
public class Task {
...
public void run() {
while(true) { }
}
}
There are two concerns I have with my approach:
Should I be creating a task that just returns after doing work and continue spawning threads that do minimal amounts of work? I'm concerned about the overhead, but am not sure how to measure it.
If I have a Thread that just loops infinitely, when I force quit the executable, will those Threads be shutdown and cleaned up? After some testing, it doesn't appear an InterruptException is being thrown when the code containing the ExecutorService is forcefully shutdown.
EDIT:
To elaborate, the Task looks like
public void run() {
while(true) {
// Let queue be a synchronized, global queue
if (queue has an element) {
// Pop from queue and do a very minimal amount of work on it
// Involves a small amount of network IO (maybe 10-100 ms)
} else {
sleep(2000);
}
}
}

I agree with #D Levant, Blocking queue is the key to use here. With blocking queue, you don't need to handle the queue-empty or queue-full scenario.
In your Task class,
while(true) {
// Let queue be a synchronized, global queue
if (queue has an element) {
// Pop from queue and do a very minimal amount of work on it
// Involves a small amount of network IO (maybe 10-100 ms)
} else {
sleep(2000);
}
}
Its really not a good approach, its inefficient because your while loop is continuously polling, even you have put the thread sleep(), but still its also a overhead of unnecessary context-switches every time the thread wake-ups and sleeps.
In my opinion, your approach of using Executors is looking good for your case. Thread creation is obviously a costly process, and Executors provide us the flexibility of re-using the same thread for different tasks.
You can just pass your task through execute(Runnable) or submit(Runnable/Callable) and then rest will be taken care by Executors internally. Executors internally uses blocking queue concept only.
You can even create your own thread pool by using the ThreadPoolExecutor class and passing the required parameter in its constructor, here you can pass your own blocking queue to hold the tasks. Rest thread-management will be taken care by it on basis of the configuration passes in constructor, So If you are really confident about the configuration parameters then you can go for it.
Now the last point, If you don't want to use the Java's in-built Executors framework, then you can design your solution by using BlockingQueue to hold tasks and starting a thread which will take the tasks from this blocking queue to execute, Below is the high-level implementation:
class TaskRunner {
private int noOfThreads; //The no of threads which you want to run always
private boolean started;
private int taskQueueSize; //No. of tasks that can be in queue at a time, when try to add more tasks, then you have to wait.
private BlockingQueue<Runnable> taskQueue;
private List<Worker> workerThreads;
public TaskRunner(int noOfThreads, int taskQueueSize) {
this.noOfThreads = noOfThreads;
this.taskQueueSize = taskQueueSize;
}
//You can pass any type of task(provided they are implementing Runnable)
public void submitTask(Runnable task) {
if(!started) {
init();
}
try {
taskQueue.put(task);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void shutdown() {
for(Worker worker : workerThreads){
worker.stopped = true;
}
}
private void init() {
this.taskQueue = new LinkedBlockingDeque<>(taskQueueSize);
this.workerThreads = new ArrayList<>(noOfThreads);
for(int i=0; i< noOfThreads; i++) {
Worker worker = new Worker();
workerThreads.add(worker);
worker.start();
}
}
private class Worker extends Thread {
private volatile boolean stopped;
public void run() {
if(!stopped) {
try {
taskQueue.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
class Task1 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
//Your implementation for the task of type 1
}
}
class Task2 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
//Your implementation for the task of type 2
}
}
class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
TaskRunner runner = new TaskRunner(3,5);
runner.submitTask(new Task1());
runner.submitTask(new Task2());
runner.shutdown();
}
}

Using thread for parallel processing in java

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.

Java Threads with Boss-Worker

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.

Blocking queue and multi-threaded consumer, how to know when to stop

I have a single thread producer which creates some task objects which are then added into an ArrayBlockingQueue (which is of fixed size).
I also start a multi-threaded consumer. This is build as a fixed thread pool (Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threadCount);). I then submit some ConsumerWorker intances to this threadPool, each ConsumerWorker having a refference to the above mentioned ArrayBlockingQueue instance.
Each such Worker will do a take() on the queue and deal with the task.
My issue is, what's the best way to have a Worker know when there won't be any more work to be done. In other words, how do I tell the Workers that the producer has finished adding to the queue, and from this point on, each worker should stop when he sees that the Queue is empty.
What I've got now is a setup where my Producer is initialized with a callback which is triggered when he finishes it's job (of adding stuff to the queue). I also keep a list of all the ConsumerWorkers I've created and submitted to the ThreadPool. When the Producer Callback tells me that the producer is done, I can tell this to each of the workers. At this point they should simply keep checking if the queue is not empty, and when it becomes empty they should stop, thus allowing me to gracefully shutDown the ExecutorService thread pool. It's something like this
public class ConsumerWorker implements Runnable{
private BlockingQueue<Produced> inputQueue;
private volatile boolean isRunning = true;
public ConsumerWorker(BlockingQueue<Produced> inputQueue) {
this.inputQueue = inputQueue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
//worker loop keeps taking en element from the queue as long as the producer is still running or as
//long as the queue is not empty:
while(isRunning || !inputQueue.isEmpty()) {
System.out.println("Consumer "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+" START");
try {
Object queueElement = inputQueue.take();
//process queueElement
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
//this is used to signal from the main thread that he producer has finished adding stuff to the queue
public void setRunning(boolean isRunning) {
this.isRunning = isRunning;
}
}
The problem here is that I have an obvious race condition where sometimes the producer will finish, signal it, and the ConsumerWorkers will stop BEFORE consuming everything in the queue.
My question is what's the best way to synchronize this so that it all works ok? Should I synchronize the whole part where it checks if the producer is running plus if the queue is empty plus take something from the queue in one block (on the queue object)? Should I just synchronize the update of the isRunning boolean on the ConsumerWorker instance? Any other suggestion?
UPDATE, HERE'S THE WORKING IMPLEMENTATION THAT I'VE ENDED UP USING:
public class ConsumerWorker implements Runnable{
private BlockingQueue<Produced> inputQueue;
private final static Produced POISON = new Produced(-1);
public ConsumerWorker(BlockingQueue<Produced> inputQueue) {
this.inputQueue = inputQueue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
//worker loop keeps taking en element from the queue as long as the producer is still running or as
//long as the queue is not empty:
while(true) {
System.out.println("Consumer "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+" START");
try {
Produced queueElement = inputQueue.take();
Thread.sleep(new Random().nextInt(100));
if(queueElement==POISON) {
break;
}
//process queueElement
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Consumer "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+" END");
}
}
//this is used to signal from the main thread that he producer has finished adding stuff to the queue
public void stopRunning() {
try {
inputQueue.put(POISON);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
This was inspired heavily by JohnVint's answer below, with only some minor modifications.
=== Update due to #vendhan's comment.
Thank you for your obeservation. You are right, the first snippet of code in this question has (amongst other issues) the one where the while(isRunning || !inputQueue.isEmpty()) doesn't really make sense.
In my actual final implementation of this, I do something which is closer to your suggestion of replacing "||" (or) with "&&" (and), in the sense that each worker (consumer) now only checks if the element he's got from the list is a poison pill, and if so stops (so theoretically we can say that the worker has to be running AND the queue must not be empty).

You should continue to take() from the queue. You can use a poison pill to tell the worker to stop. For example:
private final Object POISON_PILL = new Object();
#Override
public void run() {
//worker loop keeps taking en element from the queue as long as the producer is still running or as
//long as the queue is not empty:
while(isRunning) {
System.out.println("Consumer "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+" START");
try {
Object queueElement = inputQueue.take();
if(queueElement == POISON_PILL) {
inputQueue.add(POISON_PILL);//notify other threads to stop
return;
}
//process queueElement
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
//this is used to signal from the main thread that he producer has finished adding stuff to the queue
public void finish() {
//you can also clear here if you wanted
isRunning = false;
inputQueue.add(POISON_PILL);
}

I'd send the workers a special work packet to signal that they should shut down:
public class ConsumerWorker implements Runnable{
private static final Produced DONE = new Produced();
private BlockingQueue<Produced> inputQueue;
public ConsumerWorker(BlockingQueue<Produced> inputQueue) {
this.inputQueue = inputQueue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (;;) {
try {
Produced item = inputQueue.take();
if (item == DONE) {
inputQueue.add(item); // keep in the queue so all workers stop
break;
}
// process `item`
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
To stop the workers, simply add ConsumerWorker.DONE to the queue.

In your code-block where you attempt to retrive element from the queue , use poll(time,unit) instead of the take().
try {
Object queueElement = inputQueue.poll(timeout,unit);
//process queueElement
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
if(!isRunning && queue.isEmpty())
return ;
}
By specifying appropriate values of timeout , you ensure that threads wont keep blocking in case there is a unfortunate sequence of
isRunning is true
Queue becomes empty , so threads enter blocked wait ( if using take()
isRunning is set to false

Can not we do it using a CountDownLatch, where the size is the number of records in the producer. And every consumer will countDown after process a record. And its crosses the awaits() method when all tasks finished. Then stop all ur consumers. As all records are processed.

There are a number of strategies you could use, but one simple one is to have a subclass of task that signals the end of the job. The producer doesn't send this signal directly. Instead, it enqueues an instance of this task subclass. When one of your consumers pulls off this task and executes it, that causes the signal to be sent.

I had to use a multi-threaded producer and a multi-threaded consumer.
I ended up with a Scheduler -- N Producers -- M Consumers scheme, each two communicate via a queue (two queues total). The Scheduler fills the first queue with requests to produce data, and then fills it with N "poison pills". There is a counter of active producers (atomic int), and the last producer that receives the last poison pill sends M poison pills to the consumer queue.

Wait until any of Future<T> is done

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();
}
}
}