Develop Reference

Calling methods of Singleton class concurrently

I have a sinlgeton object which holds one method, which is NOT synchronized. The singleton can be accessed by many clients at a time - what will happen if multiple clients access that object ?
Actually I want to write a log in a single file using that method.

I guess by clients, you mean threads. Assuming you have implemented singleton correctly, all threads would be using the same instance. Since this is a method that changes state (writing to a file), it would require in general require some sort of synchronization. Although it depends on some factors - for example, if your method writes just a single line in a single call to BufferedWriter.write(), it is fine. Because BufferefWriter.write() does synchronization internally. However, if you write multiple lines or make multiple calls to BufferedWriter.write(), the different calls might execute out of order.
Now, if by clients you mean different processes, simple synchronization of course will not help. You can use FileLock to lock the file if the processes are in the same JVM. Otherwise, you have to lock using something external, such as use another temp file as lock. It depends on the OS though if it provides atomic file creates.

Send Data from multiple threads to a single thread

I'm coding a Java socket server that connects to Arduino which in turn send and receive data. As shown by the Java socket documentation I've set up the server to open a new thread for every connection.
My question is, how will I be able to send the data from the socket threads to my main thread? The socket will be constantly open, so the data has to be sent while the thread is running.
Any suggestion?
Update: the goal of the server is to send commands to an Arduino (ie. Turn ligh on or off) and receive data from sensors, therefore I need a way to obtain that data from the sensors which are connected to individual threads and to send them into a single one.

Sharing data among threads is always tricky. There is no "correct" answer, it all depends on your use case. I suppose you are not searching for the highest performance, but for easiness of use, right?
For that case, I would recommend looking at synchronized collections, maps, lists or queues perhaps. One class, which seems like a good fit for you, is ConcurrentLinkedQueue.
You can also create synchronized proxies for all usual collections using the factory methods in Collections class:
Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<String>());
You do not have to synchronize access to them.
Another option, which might be an overkill, is using database. There are some in-memory databases, like H2.
In any case, I suggest you to lower the amount of shared information to the lowest possible level. For example, you can keep the "raw" data separate per thread (e.g. in ThreadLocal variables) and then just synchronize during aggregation.

You seem to have the right idea - you need a thread to run the connection to the external device and you need a main thread to run your application.
How do you share data between these threads: This isn't in general a problem - different threads can write to the same memory; within the same application threads share memory space.
What you probably want to avoid is the two thread concurrently changing or reading the data - java provides a very useful keyword - synchronized - to handle this sort of situation which is straight forward to use and provides the kind of guarantees you need. This is a bit technical but discusses the concurrency features.

Here is a tutorial you might be able to get some more information on. Please note, a quick google search will bring up lots of answers to your question.
http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-multithreaded-servers/multithreaded-server.html
In answer to your question, you can send the information from one thread to another by using a number of options - I would recommend if it is a simple setup, just use static variables/methods to pass the information.
Also as reference, for large scale programs, it is not recommended to start a thread for every connection. It works fine on smaller scale (e.g. a few number of clients), but scales poorly.

If this is a web application and you are just going to show the current readout of any of the sensors, then blocking queue is a huge overkill and will cause more problems than it solves. Just use a volatile static field of the required type. The field itself can be static, or it could reside in a singleton object, or it could be part of a context passed to the worker.
in the SharedState class:
static volatile float temperature;
in the thread:
SharedState.temperature = 13.2f;
In the web interface (assuming jsp):
<%= SharedState.temperature %>
btw: if you want to access last 10 readouts, then it's equally easy: just store an array with last 10 readouts instead of a single value (just don't modifiy what's inside the array, replace the whole array instead - otherwise synchronization issues might occur).

threads accessing non-synchronised methods in Java

can I ask to explain me how threads and synchronisation works in Java?
I want to write a high-performance application. Inside this application, I read a data from files into some nested classes, which are basically a nut-shell around HashMap.
After the data reading is finished, I start threads which need to go through the data and perform different checks on it. However, threads never change the data!
If I can guarantee (or at least try to guarantee;) that my threads never change the data, can I use them calling non-synchronised methods of objects containing data?
If multiple threads access the non-synchronised method, which does not change any class field, but has some internal variables, is it safe?
artificial example:
public class Data{
// this hash map is filled before I start threads
protected Map<Integer, Spike> allSpikes = new HashMap<Integer, Spike>();
public HashMap returnBigSpikes(){
Map<Integer, Spike> bigSpikes = new HashMap<Integer, Spike>();
for (Integer i: allSpikes.keySet()){
if (allSpikes.get(i).spikeSize > 100){
bigSpikes.put(i,allSpikes.get(i));
}
}
return bigSpikes;
}
}
Is it safe to call a NON-synchronised method returnBigSpikes() from threads?
I understand now that such use-cases are potentially very dangerous, because it's hard to control, that data (e.g., returned bigSpikes) will not be modified. But I have already implemented and tested it like this and want to know if I can use results of my application now, and change the architecture later...
What happens if I make the methods synchronised? Will be the application slowed down to 1 CPU performance? If so, how can I design it correctly and keep the performance?
(I read about 20-40 Gb of data (log messages) into the main memory and then run threads, which need to go through the all data to find some correlation in it; each thread becomes only a part of messages to analyse; but for the analysis, the thread should compare each message from its part with many other messages from data; that's why I first decided to allow threads to read data without synchronisation).
Thank You very much in advance.

If allSpikes is populated before all the threads start, you could make sure it isn't changed later by saving it as an unmodifiable map.
Assuming Spike is immutable, your method would then be perfectly safe to use concurrently.

In general, if you have a bunch of threads where you can guarantee that only one thread will modify a resource and the rest will only read that resource, then access to that resource doesn't need to be synchronised. In your example, each time the method returnBigSpikes() is invoked it creates a new local copy of bigSpikes hashmap, so although you're creating a hashmap it is unique to each thread, so no sync'ing problems there.

As long as anything practically immutable (eg. using final keyword) and you use an unmodifiableMap everything is fine.
I would suggest the following UnmodifiableData:
public class UnmodifiableData {
final Map<Integer,Spike> bigSpikes;
public UnmodifiableData(Map<Integer,Spike> bigSpikes) {
this.bigSpikes = Collections.unmodifiableMap(new HashMap<>(bigSpikes));
}
....
}

Your plan should work fine. You do not need to synchronize reads, only writes.
If, however, in the future you wish to cache bigSpikes so that all threads get the same map then you need to be more careful about synchronisation.

If you use ConcurrentHashMap, it will do all syncronization work for you. Its bettr, then making synronization around ordinary HashMap.

Since allSpikes is initialized before you start threads it's safe. Concurrency problems appear only when a thread writes to a resource and others read from it.

In Java can I depend on reference assignment being atomic to implement copy on write?

If I have an unsynchronized java collection in a multithreaded environment, and I don't want to force readers of the collection to synchronize[1], is a solution where I synchronize the writers and use the atomicity of reference assignment feasible? Something like:
private Collection global = new HashSet(); // start threading after this
void allUpdatesGoThroughHere(Object exampleOperand) {
// My hypothesis is that this prevents operations in the block being re-ordered
synchronized(global) {
Collection copy = new HashSet(global);
copy.remove(exampleOperand);
// Given my hypothesis, we should have a fully constructed object here. So a
// reader will either get the old or the new Collection, but never an
// inconsistent one.
global = copy;
}
}
// Do multithreaded reads here. All reads are done through a reference copy like:
// Collection copy = global;
// for (Object elm: copy) {...
// so the global reference being updated half way through should have no impact
Rolling your own solution seems to often fail in these type of situations, so I'd be interested in knowing other patterns, collections or libraries I could use to prevent object creation and blocking for my data consumers.
[1] The reasons being a large proportion of time spent in reads compared to writes, combined with the risk of introducing deadlocks.
Edit: A lot of good information in several of the answers and comments, some important points:
A bug was present in the code I posted. Synchronizing on global (a badly named variable) can fail to protect the syncronized block after a swap.
You could fix this by synchronizing on the class (moving the synchronized keyword to the method), but there may be other bugs. A safer and more maintainable solution is to use something from java.util.concurrent.
There is no "eventual consistency guarantee" in the code I posted, one way to make sure that readers do get to see the updates by writers is to use the volatile keyword.
On reflection the general problem that motivated this question was trying to implement lock free reads with locked writes in java, however my (solved) problem was with a collection, which may be unnecessarily confusing for future readers. So in case it is not obvious the code I posted works by allowing one writer at a time to perform edits to "some object" that is being read unprotected by multiple reader threads. Commits of the edit are done through an atomic operation so readers can only get the pre-edit or post-edit "object". When/if the reader thread gets the update, it cannot occur in the middle of a read as the read is occurring on the old copy of the "object". A simple solution that had probably been discovered and proved to be broken in some way prior to the availability of better concurrency support in java.

Rather than trying to roll out your own solution, why not use a ConcurrentHashMap as your set and just set all the values to some standard value? (A constant like Boolean.TRUE would work well.)
I think this implementation works well with the many-readers-few-writers scenario. There's even a constructor that lets you set the expected "concurrency level".
Update: Veer has suggested using the Collections.newSetFromMap utility method to turn the ConcurrentHashMap into a Set. Since the method takes a Map<E,Boolean> my guess is that it does the same thing with setting all the values to Boolean.TRUE behind-the-scenes.
Update: Addressing the poster's example
That is probably what I will end up going with, but I am still curious about how my minimalist solution could fail. – MilesHampson
Your minimalist solution would work just fine with a bit of tweaking. My worry is that, although it's minimal now, it might get more complicated in the future. It's hard to remember all of the conditions you assume when making something thread-safe—especially if you're coming back to the code weeks/months/years later to make a seemingly insignificant tweak. If the ConcurrentHashMap does everything you need with sufficient performance then why not use that instead? All the nasty concurrency details are encapsulated away and even 6-months-from-now you will have a hard time messing it up!
You do need at least one tweak before your current solution will work. As has already been pointed out, you should probably add the volatile modifier to global's declaration. I don't know if you have a C/C++ background, but I was very surprised when I learned that the semantics of volatile in Java are actually much more complicated than in C. If you're planning on doing a lot of concurrent programming in Java then it'd be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the basics of the Java memory model. If you don't make the reference to global a volatile reference then it's possible that no thread will ever see any changes to the value of global until they try to update it, at which point entering the synchronized block will flush the local cache and get the updated reference value.
However, even with the addition of volatile there's still a huge problem. Here's a problem scenario with two threads:
We begin with the empty set, or global={}. Threads A and B both have this value in their thread-local cached memory.
Thread A obtains obtains the synchronized lock on global and starts the update by making a copy of global and adding the new key to the set.
While Thread A is still inside the synchronized block, Thread B reads its local value of global onto the stack and tries to enter the synchronized block. Since Thread A is currently inside the monitor Thread B blocks.
Thread A completes the update by setting the reference and exiting the monitor, resulting in global={1}.
Thread B is now able to enter the monitor and makes a copy of the global={1} set.
Thread A decides to make another update, reads in its local global reference and tries to enter the synchronized block. Since Thread B currently holds the lock on {} there is no lock on {1} and Thread A successfully enters the monitor!
Thread A also makes a copy of {1} for purposes of updating.
Now Threads A and B are both inside the synchronized block and they have identical copies of the global={1} set. This means that one of their updates will be lost! This situation is caused by the fact that you're synchronizing on an object stored in a reference that you're updating inside your synchronized block. You should always be very careful which objects you use to synchronize. You can fix this problem by adding a new variable to act as the lock:
private volatile Collection global = new HashSet(); // start threading after this
private final Object globalLock = new Object(); // final reference used for synchronization
void allUpdatesGoThroughHere(Object exampleOperand) {
// My hypothesis is that this prevents operations in the block being re-ordered
synchronized(globalLock) {
Collection copy = new HashSet(global);
copy.remove(exampleOperand);
// Given my hypothesis, we should have a fully constructed object here. So a
// reader will either get the old or the new Collection, but never an
// inconsistent one.
global = copy;
}
}
This bug was insidious enough that none of the other answers have addressed it yet. It's these kinds of crazy concurrency details that cause me to recommend using something from the already-debugged java.util.concurrent library rather than trying to put something together yourself. I think the above solution would work—but how easy would it be to screw it up again? This would be so much easier:
private final Set<Object> global = Collections.newSetFromMap(new ConcurrentHashMap<Object,Boolean>());
Since the reference is final you don't need to worry about threads using stale references, and since the ConcurrentHashMap handles all the nasty memory model issues internally you don't have to worry about all the nasty details of monitors and memory barriers!

According to the relevant Java Tutorial,
We have already seen that an increment expression, such as c++, does not describe an atomic action. Even very simple expressions can define complex actions that can decompose into other actions. However, there are actions you can specify that are atomic:
Reads and writes are atomic for reference variables and for most primitive variables (all types except long and double).
Reads and writes are atomic for all variables declared volatile (including long and double variables).
This is reaffirmed by Section §17.7 of the Java Language Specification
Writes to and reads of references are always atomic, regardless of whether they are implemented as 32-bit or 64-bit values.
It appears that you can indeed rely on reference access being atomic; however, recognize that this does not ensure that all readers will read an updated value for global after this write -- i.e. there is no memory ordering guarantee here.
If you use an implicit lock via synchronized on all access to global, then you can forge some memory consistency here... but it might be better to use an alternative approach.
You also appear to want the collection in global to remain immutable... luckily, there is Collections.unmodifiableSet which you can use to enforce this. As an example, you should likely do something like the following...
private volatile Collection global = Collections.unmodifiableSet(new HashSet());
... that, or using AtomicReference,
private AtomicReference<Collection> global = new AtomicReference<>(Collections.unmodifiableSet(new HashSet()));
You would then use Collections.unmodifiableSet for your modified copies as well.
// ... All reads are done through a reference copy like:
// Collection copy = global;
// for (Object elm: copy) {...
// so the global reference being updated half way through should have no impact
You should know that making a copy here is redundant, as internally for (Object elm : global) creates an Iterator as follows...
final Iterator it = global.iterator();
while (it.hasNext()) {
Object elm = it.next();
}
There is therefore no chance of switching to an entirely different value for global in the midst of reading.
All that aside, I agree with the sentiment expressed by DaoWen... is there any reason you're rolling your own data structure here when there may be an alternative available in java.util.concurrent? I figured maybe you're dealing with an older Java, since you use raw types, but it won't hurt to ask.
You can find copy-on-write collection semantics provided by CopyOnWriteArrayList, or its cousin CopyOnWriteArraySet (which implements a Set using the former).
Also suggested by DaoWen, have you considered using a ConcurrentHashMap? They guarantee that using a for loop as you've done in your example will be consistent.
Similarly, Iterators and Enumerations return elements reflecting the state of the hash table at some point at or since the creation of the iterator/enumeration.
Internally, an Iterator is used for enhanced for over an Iterable.
You can craft a Set from this by utilizing Collections.newSetFromMap like follows:
final Set<E> safeSet = Collections.newSetFromMap(new ConcurrentHashMap<E, Boolean>());
...
/* guaranteed to reflect the state of the set at read-time */
for (final E elem : safeSet) {
...
}

I think your original idea was sound, and DaoWen did a good job getting the bugs out. Unless you can find something that does everything for you, it's better to understand these things than hope some magical class will do it for you. Magical classes can make your life easier and reduce the number of mistakes, but you do want to understand what they are doing.
ConcurrentSkipListSet might do a better job for you here. It could get rid of all your multithreading problems.
However, it is slower than a HashSet (usually--HashSets and SkipLists/Trees hard to compare). If you are doing a lot of reads for every write, what you've got will be faster. More importantly, if you update more than one entry at a time, your reads could see inconsistent results. If you expect that whenever there is an entry A there is an entry B, and vice versa, the skip list could give you one without the other.
With your current solution, to the readers, the contents of the map are always internally consistent. A read can be sure there's an A for every B. It can be sure that the size() method gives the precise number of elements that will be returned by the iterator. Two iterations will return the same elements in the same order.
In other words, allUpdatesGoThroughHere and ConcurrentSkipListSet are two good solutions to two different problems.

Can you use the Collections.synchronizedSet method? From HashSet Javadoc http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/HashSet.html
Set s = Collections.synchronizedSet(new HashSet(...));

Replace the synchronized by making global volatile and you'll be alright as far as the copy-on-write goes.
Although the assignment is atomic, in other threads it is not ordered with the writes to the object referenced. There needs to be a happens-before relationship which you get with a volatile or synchronising both reads and writes.
The problem of multiple updates happening at once is separate - use a single thread or whatever you want to do there.
If you used a synchronized for both reads and writes then it'd be correct but the performance may not be great with reads needing to hand-off. A ReadWriteLock may be appropriate, but you'd still have writes blocking reads.
Another approach to the publication issue is to use final field semantics to create an object that is (in theory) safe to be published unsafely.
Of course, there are also concurrent collections available.

Sending objects back and forth between threads in java?

I have multiple client handler threads, these threads need to pass received object to a server queue and the sever queue will pass another type of object back to the sending thread. The server queue is started and keeps running when the server starts.I am not sure which thread mechanism to use for the client handler threads notified an object is sent back. I don't intend to use socket or writing to a file.

If you wanted to do actual message passing take a look at SynchronusQueue. Each thread will have reference to the queue and would wait until one thread passed the reference through the queue.
This would be thread safe and address your requirements.
Though if you are simply looking to have threads read and write a shared variable you can use normalocity's suggestion though it's thread-safety depends on how you access it (via sychronized or volatile)

As far as making objects accessible in Java, there's no difference between multi-thread and single-thread. You just follow the scope rules (public, private, protected), and that's it. Multiple threads all run within the same process, so there isn't any special thread-only scope rules to know about.
For example, define a method where you pass the object in, and make that method accessible from the other thread. The object you want to pass around simply needs to be accessible from the other thread's scope.
As far as thread-safety, you can synchronize your writes, and for the most part, that will take care of things. Thread safety can get a bit hairy the more complicated your code, but I think this will get you started.
One method for processing objects, and producing result objects is to have a shared array or LinkedList that acts as a queue of objects, containing the objects to be processed, and the resulting objects from that processing. It's hard to go into much more detail than that without more specifics on what exactly you're trying to do, but most shared access to objects between threads comes down to either inter-thread method calls, or some shared collection/queue of objects.

Unless you are absolutely certain that it will always be only a single object at a time, use some sort of Queue.
If you are certain that it will always be only a single object at a time, use some sort of Queue anyway. :-)

Use a concurrent queue from the java.util.concurrent.*.
why? Almost guaranteed to provide better general performance than any thing hand rolled.
recommendation: use a bound queue and you will get back-pressure for free.
note: the depth of queue determines your general latency characteristics: shallower queues will have lower latencies at the cost of reduced bandwidth.
Use Future semantics
why? Futures provide a proven and standard means of getting asynchronous result.
recommendation: create a simple Request class and expose a method #getFutureResponse(). The implementation of this method can use a variety of signaling strategies, such as Lock, flag (using Atomic/CAS), etc.
note: use of timeout semantics in Future will allow you to link server behavior to your server SLA e.g. #getFutureResponse(sla_timeout_ms).

A book tip for if you want to dive a bit more into communication between threads (or processes, or systems): Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture Volume 2: Patterns for Concurrent and Networked Objects

Just use simple dependency injection.
MyFirstThread extends Thread{
public void setData(Object o){...}
}
MySecondThread extends Thread{
MyFirstThread callback;
MySecondThread(MyFirstThread callback){this.callback=callback)
}
MyFirstThread t1 = new MyFirstThread();
MySecondThread t2 = new MySecondThread(t1);
t1.start();
t2.start();
You can now do callback.setData(...) in your second thread.
I find this to be the safest way. Other solutions involve using volatile or some kind of shared object which I think is an overkill.
You may also want to use BlockingQueue and pass both of those to each thread. If you plan to have more than one thread then it is probably a better solution.