I'm trying to implement a sample application to test Callable and ExecutorService interfaces.
In my app I have declared:
ExecutorService exSvc = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Then:
Future<Integer> test = exSvc.submit(
new Callable<Integer>() {
public Integer call() {
for(int i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
System.out.println(i);
}
return 1;
}
});
Now I'm trying to stop the process before it terminate, I'm using exSvc.shutdownNow() but it doesn't work.
To stop gracefully a classical Thread I usually use some kind of condition variable. Which is a common approach to follow with ExecutorService?
Future.cancel(true) and ExecutorService.shutdownNow() use thread interruption. As long as you don't make uninterruptable blocking calls in your task, all you need is to handle interrupted condition correctly, something like this:
for(int i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
// Uses isInterrupted() to keep interrupted status set
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// Cannot use InterruptedException since it's checked
throw new RuntimeException();
}
System.out.println(i);
}
If you make uninterruptable blocking calls (such as network IO), things become more complex, you need to interrupt them manually somehow, for example, by closing the underlying sockets.
This is how I'd do it with a FixedThreadPool, hope it's of some help.
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors());
List<Future<Void>> results = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfJobs; i++) {
MyCallableJob job = new MyCallableJob (...);
results.add(pool.submit(job));
}
for (Future<Void> result : results) {
try { result.get(); }
catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException ignorable) { }
}
pool.shutdown();
Related
I have a loop which create a new Thread on each iteration, like so:
for(int i = 0; i < REPEAT; i++) {
new Thread(new MyTask(i)).start();
Thread.sleep(1);
}
private void finalTask() {
//Some code to be executed once every threads stopped running
}
Where MyTask is a class implementing Runnable. My goal is: I would like to run finalTask once every threads stopped. To achieve this, I have tried incrementing a variable by 1 each time a thread finished running, and once this variable was equal to REPEAT, the final task would run. But this didn't work. I've searched on Google and StackOverlow for answers to my problem, but there are very little informations on this and none of them worked as well. There would always be a thread that was running after the final task. How can I do this then?
You can use a CountDownLatch for this. A CountDownLatch is
A synchronization aid that allows one or more threads to wait until a set of operations being performed in other threads completes.
CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(REPEAT);
for (int i = 0; i < REPEAT; i++) {
new Thread(new MyTask(i, countDownLatch)).start();
Thread.sleep(1);
}
finalTask(countDownLatch);
I create a CountDownLatch whose count is initialized to the value of REPEAT. I pass this to each of the threads and to the finalTask method.
Each thread after doing its work should call the countDown method of the countDownLatch.
private static class MyTask implements Runnable {
private int i;
private CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
private MyTask(int i, CountDownLatch countDownLatch) {
this.i = i;
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
#Override
public void run() {
//Perform some task
System.out.println("Running " + i);
countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}
The first line of the finalTask method should call the await method of the CountDownLatch. This will cause the thread running the finalTask wait till the count of the CountDownLatch reaches 0 i.e., until all threads (REPEAT number of them) has completed and invoked the countDown of the CountDownLatch.
private static void finalTask(CountDownLatch countDownLatch) {
try {
countDownLatch.await(); //this will wait until the count becomes 0.
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace(); //handle it appropriately
}
//Some code to be executed once all threads stopped running
System.out.println("All done");
}
Another simple way is to just join() on all the threads and then call finalTask():
Thread tasks[] = new Thread[REPEAT];
for(int i = 0; i < REPEAT; i++) {
tasks[i] = new Thread(new MyTask(i));
tasks[i].start();
}
for (Thread task : tasks) {
for (;;) {
try {
task.join();
break;
}
catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
// catch code here
}
}
}
finalTask();
Note there's almost more code used to handle the possible InterruptedException from the join() method call than used to implement the rest of the processing.
You can put them into CompletableFutures and then use whenComplete() .
CompletableFuture[] all =
IntStream.range(0, REPEAT+1).
.mapToObj(i -> CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(new MyTask(i)))
.toArray(CompletableFuture[]::new) ;
CompletableFuture.allOf(all).whenComplete((r, t) -> {
// your code here
}) ;
I have written a simple program, that is intended to start a few threads. The threads should then pick a integer n from an integer array, use it to wait n and return the time t the thread waited back into an array for the results.
If one thread finishes it's task, it should pick the next one, that has not yet being assigned to another thread.
Of course: The order in the arrays has to be maintained, so that integers and results match.
My code runs smoothly as far I see.
However I use one line of code block I find in particular unsatisfying and hope there is a good way to fix this without changing too much:
while(Thread.activeCount() != 1); // first evil line
I kinda abuse this line to make sure all my threads finish getting all the tasks done, before I access my array with the results. I want to do that to prevent ill values, like 0.0, Null Pointer Exception... etc. (in short anything that would make an application with an actual use crash)
Any sort of constructive help is appreciated. I am also not sure, if my code still runs smoothly for very very long arrays of tasks for the threads, for example the results no longer match the order of the integer.
Any constructive help is appreciated.
First class:
public class ThreadArrayWriterTest {
int[] repitions;
int len = 0;
double[] timeConsumed;
public boolean finished() {
synchronized (repitions) {
return len <= 0;
}
}
public ThreadArrayWriterTest(int[] repitions) {
this.repitions = repitions;
this.len = repitions.length;
timeConsumed = new double[this.len];
}
public double[] returnTimes(int[] repititions, int numOfThreads, TimeConsumer timeConsumer) {
for (int i = 0; i < numOfThreads; i++) {
new Thread() {
public void run() {
while (!finished()) {
len--;
timeConsumed[len] = timeConsumer.returnTimeConsumed(repititions[len]);
}
}
}.start();
}
while (Thread.activeCount() != 1) // first evil line
;
return timeConsumed;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
long begin = System.currentTimeMillis();
int[] repitions = { 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 3, 3 };
int numberOfThreads = 10;
ThreadArrayWriterTest t = new ThreadArrayWriterTest(repitions);
double[] times = t.returnTimes(repitions, numberOfThreads, new TimeConsumer());
for (double d : times) {
System.out.println(d);
}
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Total time of execution: " + (end - begin));
}
}
Second class:
public class TimeConsumer {
double returnTimeConsumed(int repitions) {
long before = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < repitions; i++) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
long after = System.currentTimeMillis();
double ret = after - before;
System.out.println("It takes: " + ret + "ms" + " for " + repitions + " runs through the for-loop");
return ret;
}
}
The easiest way to wait for all threads to complete is to keep a Collection of them and then call Thread.join() on each one in turn.
In addition to .join() you can use ExecutorService to manage pools of threads,
An Executor that provides methods to manage termination and methods
that can produce a Future for tracking progress of one or more
asynchronous tasks.
An ExecutorService can be shut down, which will cause it to reject new
tasks. Two different methods are provided for shutting down an
ExecutorService. The shutdown() method will allow previously submitted
tasks to execute before terminating, while the shutdownNow() method
prevents waiting tasks from starting and attempts to stop currently
executing tasks. Upon termination, an executor has no tasks actively
executing, no tasks awaiting execution, and no new tasks can be
submitted. An unused ExecutorService should be shut down to allow
reclamation of its resources.
Method submit extends base method Executor.execute(Runnable) by
creating and returning a Future that can be used to cancel execution
and/or wait for completion. Methods invokeAny and invokeAll perform
the most commonly useful forms of bulk execution, executing a
collection of tasks and then waiting for at least one, or all, to
complete.
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(maximumNumberOfThreads);
CompletionService completionService = new ExecutorCompletionService(executorService);
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfTasks; ++i) {
completionService.take();
}
executorService.shutdown();
Plus take a look at ThreadPoolExecutor
Since java provides more advanced threading API with concurrent package, You should have look into ExecutorService, which simplifies thread management mechanism.
Simple to solution to your problem.
Use Executors API to create thread pool
static ExecutorService newFixedThreadPool(int nThreads)
Creates a thread pool that reuses a fixed number of threads operating off a shared unbounded queue.
Use invokeAll to wait for all tasks to complete.
Sample code:
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
List<MyCallable> futureList = new ArrayList<MyCallable>();
for ( int i=0; i<12; i++){
MyCallable myCallable = new MyCallable((long)i);
futureList.add(myCallable);
}
System.out.println("Start");
try{
List<Future<Long>> futures = service.invokeAll(futureList);
for(Future<Long> future : futures){
try{
System.out.println("future.isDone = " + future.isDone());
System.out.println("future: call ="+future.get());
}
catch(Exception err1){
err1.printStackTrace();
}
}
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
service.shutdown();
Refer to this related SE question for more details on achieving the same:
wait until all threads finish their work in java
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
How to know if other threads have finished?
I have a threadpool that executes threads for me, how can I tell when ALL the threads I've passed it are done?
For example:
main.java
for (int i = 0; i < objectArray.length; i++) {
threadPool.submit(new ThreadHandler(objectArray[i], i));
Thread.sleep(500);
}
ThreadHandler.java
public class ThreadHandler implements Runnable {
protected SuperHandler HandlerSH;
protected int threadNum;
public ThreadHandler(SuperHandler superH, int threadNum) {
this.threadNum = threadNum;
this.HandlerSH = superH;
}
public void run() {
//do all methods here
}
Would I just put something into the run() section to set a boolean or something? Would I make an array of boolean to check when they're all done?
Thanks.
When you submit a job into a thread pool, it returns a Future instance. You can call Future.get() to see if the job has finished. This is effectively similar to a join on the tasks running in a thread pool.
You can also call threadPool.awaitTermination(...) if the thread-pool has been shutdown and you want to wait for all of the tasks have finished.
Often when I am submitting a number of jobs into a thread pool, I record their futures in a list:
List<Future<?>> futures = new ArrayList<Future<?>>();
for (int i = 0; i < objectArray.length; i++) {
futures.add(threadPool.submit(new ThreadHandler(objectArray[i], i)));
}
// if we are done submitting, we shutdown
threadPool.shutdown();
// now we can get from the future list or awaitTermination
for (Future<?> future : futures) {
// this throws an exception if your job threw an exception
future.get();
}
I read in a few posts that using JUnit to test concurrency is not ideal but I have no choice for now. I have just encountered an exception that I can't explain.
I run a test where, in summary:
I submit 1000 runnables to an executor
each runnable adds an element to a list
I wait for the executor termination
JUnit tells me the list only has 999 elements
no exception is printed in the runnable catch block
What could cause that behavior?
Note: I only get the exception from time to time. The code has some non related stuff but I left it there in case I missed something. XXXQuery is an enum.
public void testConcurrent() throws InterruptedException {
final int N_THREADS = 1000;
final XXXData xxxData = new AbstractXXXDataImpl();
final List<QueryResult> results = new ArrayList<>();
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(N_THREADS);
for (int i = 0; i < N_THREADS; i++) {
final int j = i;
executor.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
results.add(xxxData.get(XXXQuery.values()[j % XXXQuery.values().length]));
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(e);
}
}
});
}
executor.shutdown();
executor.awaitTermination(10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
assertEquals(N_THREADS, results.size());
}
You cannot add to the results ArrayList in your Runnable.run() method in multiple threads without synchronizing around it.
The assertion failed message is showing that although N_THREADS calls to add() were made, the ArrayList got fewer entries because of concurrency race conditions.
I would use a final array instead of a list. Something like:
final QueryResult[] results = new QueryResult[N_THREADS];
for (int i = 0; i < N_THREADS; i++) {
...
public void run() {
results[j] = data.get(Query.values()[j % Query.values().length]);
}
Also, I don't quite get the XXXQuery.values() but I'd pull that into a variable above the loop unless it is changing.
What is a way to simply wait for all threaded process to finish? For example, let's say I have:
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread());
t.start();
}
// wait for all threads' run() methods to complete before continuing
}
public void run() {
// do something here
}
}
How do I alter this so the main() method pauses at the comment until all threads' run() methods exit? Thanks!
You put all threads in an array, start them all, and then have a loop
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
Each join will block until the respective thread has completed. Threads may complete in a different order than you joining them, but that's not a problem: when the loop exits, all threads are completed.
One way would be to make a List of Threads, create and launch each thread, while adding it to the list. Once everything is launched, loop back through the list and call join() on each one. It doesn't matter what order the threads finish executing in, all you need to know is that by the time that second loop finishes executing, every thread will have completed.
A better approach is to use an ExecutorService and its associated methods:
List<Callable> callables = ... // assemble list of Callables here
// Like Runnable but can return a value
ExecutorService execSvc = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
List<Future<?>> results = execSvc.invokeAll(callables);
// Note: You may not care about the return values, in which case don't
// bother saving them
Using an ExecutorService (and all of the new stuff from Java 5's concurrency utilities) is incredibly flexible, and the above example barely even scratches the surface.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException
{
//limit the number of actual threads
int poolSize = 10;
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize);
List<Future<Runnable>> futures = new ArrayList<Future<Runnable>>();
for (int n = 0; n < 1000; n++)
{
Future f = service.submit(new DoSomethingInAThread());
futures.add(f);
}
// wait for all tasks to complete before continuing
for (Future<Runnable> f : futures)
{
f.get();
}
//shut down the executor service so that this thread can exit
service.shutdownNow();
}
public void run()
{
// do something here
}
}
instead of join(), which is an old API, you can use CountDownLatch. I have modified your code as below to fulfil your requirement.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
CountDownLatch latch;
public DoSomethingInAThread(CountDownLatch latch){
this.latch = latch;
}
public void run() {
try{
System.out.println("Do some thing");
latch.countDown();
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public class CountDownLatchDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try{
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1000);
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread(latch));
t.start();
}
latch.await();
System.out.println("In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads");
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Explanation:
CountDownLatch has been initialized with given count 1000 as per your requirement.
Each worker thread DoSomethingInAThread will decrement the CountDownLatch, which has been passed in constructor.
Main thread CountDownLatchDemo await() till the count has become zero. Once the count has become zero, you will get below line in output.
In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads
More info from oracle documentation page
public void await()
throws InterruptedException
Causes the current thread to wait until the latch has counted down to zero, unless the thread is interrupted.
Refer to related SE question for other options:
wait until all threads finish their work in java
Avoid the Thread class altogether and instead use the higher abstractions provided in java.util.concurrent
The ExecutorService class provides the method invokeAll that seems to do just what you want.
Consider using java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch. Examples in javadocs
Depending on your needs, you may also want to check out the classes CountDownLatch and CyclicBarrier in the java.util.concurrent package. They can be useful if you want your threads to wait for each other, or if you want more fine-grained control over the way your threads execute (e.g., waiting in their internal execution for another thread to set some state). You could also use a CountDownLatch to signal all of your threads to start at the same time, instead of starting them one by one as you iterate through your loop. The standard API docs have an example of this, plus using another CountDownLatch to wait for all threads to complete their execution.
As Martin K suggested java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch seems to be a better solution for this. Just adding an example for the same
public class CountDownLatchDemo
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
int noOfThreads = 5;
// Declare the count down latch based on the number of threads you need
// to wait on
final CountDownLatch executionCompleted = new CountDownLatch(noOfThreads);
for (int i = 0; i < noOfThreads; i++)
{
new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run ()
{
System.out.println("I am executed by :" + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try
{
// Dummy sleep
Thread.sleep(3000);
// One thread has completed its job
executionCompleted.countDown();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
}
try
{
// Wait till the count down latch opens.In the given case till five
// times countDown method is invoked
executionCompleted.await();
System.out.println("All over");
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
If you make a list of the threads, you can loop through them and .join() against each, and your loop will finish when all the threads have. I haven't tried it though.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html#join()
Create the thread object inside the first for loop.
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
threads[i] = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// some code to run in parallel
}
});
threads[i].start();
}
And then so what everyone here is saying.
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
You can do it with the Object "ThreadGroup" and its parameter activeCount:
As an alternative to CountDownLatch you can also use CyclicBarrier e.g.
public class ThreadWaitEx {
static CyclicBarrier barrier = new CyclicBarrier(100, new Runnable(){
public void run(){
System.out.println("clean up job after all tasks are done.");
}
});
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new MyCallable(barrier));
t.start();
}
}
}
class MyCallable implements Runnable{
private CyclicBarrier b = null;
public MyCallable(CyclicBarrier b){
this.b = b;
}
#Override
public void run(){
try {
//do something
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" is waiting for barrier after completing his job.");
b.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
To use CyclicBarrier in this case barrier.await() should be the last statement i.e. when your thread is done with its job. CyclicBarrier can be used again with its reset() method. To quote javadocs:
A CyclicBarrier supports an optional Runnable command that is run once per barrier point, after the last thread in the party arrives, but before any threads are released. This barrier action is useful for updating shared-state before any of the parties continue.
The join() was not helpful to me. see this sample in Kotlin:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
}
})
The result:
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Now let me use the join() for threads:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
t.join()
}
})
And the result:
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 815
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 1568
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 2323
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 3078
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 3833
As it's clear when we use the join:
The threads are running sequentially.
The first sample takes 765 Milliseconds while the second sample takes 3833 Milliseconds.
Our solution to prevent blocking other threads was creating an ArrayList:
val threads = ArrayList<Thread>()
Now when we want to start a new thread we most add it to the ArrayList:
addThreadToArray(
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
...
})
)
The addThreadToArray function:
#Synchronized
fun addThreadToArray(th: Thread) {
threads.add(th)
}
The startNewThread funstion:
fun startNewThread(runnable: Runnable) : Thread {
val th = Thread(runnable)
th.isDaemon = false
th.priority = Thread.MAX_PRIORITY
th.start()
return th
}
Check the completion of the threads as below everywhere it's needed:
val notAliveThreads = ArrayList<Thread>()
for (t in threads)
if (!t.isAlive)
notAliveThreads.add(t)
threads.removeAll(notAliveThreads)
if (threads.size == 0){
// The size is 0 -> there is no alive threads.
}
The problem with:
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
...is, that threads[i + 1] never can join before threads[i].
Except the "latch"ed ones, all solutions have this lack.
No one here (yet) mentioned ExecutorCompletionService, it allows to join threads/tasks according to their completion order:
public class ExecutorCompletionService<V>
extends Object
implements CompletionService<V>
A CompletionService that uses a supplied Executor to execute tasks. This class arranges that submitted tasks are, upon completion, placed on a queue accessible using take. The class is lightweight enough to be suitable for transient use when processing groups of tasks.
Usage Examples.
Suppose you have a set of solvers for a certain problem, each returning a value of some type Result, and would like to run them concurrently, processing the results of each of them that return a non-null value, in some method use(Result r). You could write this as:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
solvers.forEach(cs::submit);
for (int i = solvers.size(); i > 0; i--) {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null)
use(r);
}
}
Suppose instead that you would like to use the first non-null result of the set of tasks, ignoring any that encounter exceptions, and cancelling all other tasks when the first one is ready:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
int n = solvers.size();
List<Future<Result>> futures = new ArrayList<>(n);
Result result = null;
try {
solvers.forEach(solver -> futures.add(cs.submit(solver)));
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
try {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null) {
result = r;
break;
}
} catch (ExecutionException ignore) {}
}
} finally {
futures.forEach(future -> future.cancel(true));
}
if (result != null)
use(result);
}
Since: 1.5 (!)
Assuming use(r) (of Example 1) also asynchronous, we had a big advantage. #