What does InputStream.available() do in Java? - java

What does InputStream.available() do in Java? I read the documentation, but I still cannot make it out.
The doc says:
Returns the number of bytes that can be read (or skipped over) from this input stream without blocking by the next caller of a method for this input stream. The next caller might be the same thread or or another thread.
The available method for class InputStream always returns 0.
What do they mean by blocking? Does it just mean a synchronized call?
And most of all, what is the purpose of the available() method?

In InputStreams, read() calls are said to be "blocking" method calls. That means that if no data is available at the time of the method call, the method will wait for data to be made available.
The available() method tells you how many bytes can be read until the read() call will block the execution flow of your program. On most of the input streams, all call to read() are blocking, that's why available returns 0 by default.
However, on some streams (such as BufferedInputStream, that have an internal buffer), some bytes are read and kept in memory, so you can read them without blocking the program flow. In this case, the available() method tells you how many bytes are kept in the buffer.

Blocking doesn't relate to threading or synchronisation here. Instead it relates to blocking IO (see this for more info). If you issue a request to read, and the channel has none available, a blocking call will wait (or block) until data is available (or the channel is closed, throws an exception etc.)
So why use available() ? So you can determine how many bytes to read, or determine whether you're going to block.
Note that Java has non-blocking IO capabilities as well. See here for more details

Related

ObjectOutputStream objects sometimes flush automatically. How can I know exactly when to rely on this behavior and when to flush manually?

I've noticed that sometimes, a thread calling a write method on an ObjectOutputStream object, like writeUTF(), to send a value via a socket will flush the data automatically, so that there is no need for me to call flush() on the object. The thread at the other end of the communication line receives the data just fine. This has worked even when the sender thread writes on the stream object many hundreds of times under a loop.
Other times, my threads are deadlocked because the sender threads are not sending the data. This problem is fixed when I manually call a flush() method immediately after invoking, for example, writeUTF().
I doubt that this is random. I think there must be some specific circumstance under which threads writing to a stream flush the data automatically. I would like to know what those circumstances are, if any.
This is implementation dependent and may change depending on platform, version, and build of Java. Your best bet is to call flush() whenever you might need to. If there is no data to be flushed, a call to flush() is extremely fast, so this will not significantly slow down your program.

Is InputStream.available() supposed to block?

The (Oracle's) javadoc of the InputStream.available() method says the following:
Returns an estimate of the number of bytes that can be read (or skipped over) from this input stream without blocking by the next invocation of a method for this input stream. The next invocation might be the same thread or another thread. A single read or skip of this many bytes will not block, but may read or skip fewer bytes...
So the thing is that from a conceptual point of view, I would say that it makes sense that this method does not block. Otherwise, the purpose of "not blocking" in the next call to read() does not make much sense, because we could potentially block in available() itself.
The thing is that at my company we recently found several Android bluetooth implementations that block on the available() method, and we don't know if that's a bug we should report to vendors or just that available() can block.

Do Java sockets support full duplex?

Is it possible to have one thread write to the OutputStream of a Java Socket, while another reads from the socket's InputStream, without the threads having to synchronize on the socket?
Sure. The exact situation you're describing shouldn't be a problem (reading and writing simultaneously).
Generally, the reading thread will block if there's nothing to read, and might timeout on the read operation if you've got a timeout specified.
Since the input stream and the output stream are separate objects within the Socket, the only thing you might concern yourself with is, what happens if you had 2 threads trying to read or write (two threads, same input/output stream) at the same time? The read/write methods of the InputStream/OutputStream classes are not synchronized. It is possible, however, that if you're using a sub-class of InputStream/OutputStream, that the reading/writing methods you're calling are synchronized. You can check the javadoc for whatever class/methods you're calling, and find that out pretty quick.
Yes, that's safe.
If you wanted more than one thread reading from the InputStream you would have to be more careful (assuming you are reading more than one byte at a time).

Write contents of an InputStream (blocking) to a non-blocking socket

I'm programming a simple Java NIO server and have a little headache: I get normal InputStreams i need to pipe to my clients. I have a single thread performing all writes, so this creates a problem: if the InputStream blocks, all other connection writing will be paused.
I can use InputStream.available() to check if there are any incoming data I can read without blocking, but if I've reached end-of-stream it seems I must call read() to know.
This creates a major headache for me, but I can't possibly believe I'm the first to have this problem.
The only options I've come up with so far:
Have a separate thread for each InputStream, however that's just silly since I'm using non-blocking I/O in the first place. I could also have a thread pool doing this but then again that limits the amount of simultaneous clients I can pipe the InputStream to.
Have a separate thread reading these streams with a timeout (using another thread to interrupt if reading has lasted longer than a certain amount of time), but that'll most certainly choke the data flow should I have many open InputStreams not delivering data.
Of course, if there was a magic InputStream.isEof() or isClosed() then this wouldn't be any problem at all :'(
".....Have a separate thread for each InputStream, however that's just silly since I'm using non-blocking I/O in the first place...."
It's not silly at all. First you need to check whether you can retrieve a SelectableChannel from your InputStream implementation. If it does you are lucky and you can just register it with a selector and do as usual. But chances are that your InputStream may have a channel that's not a SelectableChannel, in which case "Have a separate thread for each InputStream" is the obvious thing to do and probably the right thing to do.
Note that there is a similar problem discussed in SO about not able to get a SelectableChannel from an inputstream. Unfortunately you are stuck.
I have a single thread performing all
writes
Have you stopped to consider whether that is part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

How do i check if inputstream contains no data?

I am using the javax.comm package to perform read and write operations on the SerialPort.
I have created an object of type InputStream as InputStream in;
My question is ....
Irrespective of data availibility on the SerialPort, in.available() always returns a zero due to which I am not able to decide whether bytes are available or not.
If i use the in.read() directly, it seems to block the execution forever..
Please help...
Awaiting your reply..
You can also mail me on my email address..
In anticipation of your reply....
Utsav
This is typical behavior of block I/O. The read() is going to block till some bytes are available, EOF or error. You should create a new thread and just wait for more data.
Don't use available() call because it may create a fast loop and drive up your CPU usage. If you really want do this in a single thread, looking into NIO.

Categories

Resources