can someone tell if the code below would work fine?
class CriticalSection{
int iProcessId, iCounter=0;
public static boolean[] freq = new boolean[Global.iParameter[2]];
int busy;
//constructors
CriticalSection(){}
CriticalSection(int iPid){
this.iProcessId = iPid;
}
int freqAvailable(){
for(int i=0; i<
Global.iParameter[2]; i++){
if(freq[i]==true){
//this means that there is no frequency available and the request will be dropped
iCounter++;
}
}
if(iCounter == freq.length)
return 3;
BaseStaInstance.iNumReq++;
return enterCritical();
}
int enterCritical(){
int busy=0;
for(int i=0; i<Global.iParameter[2]; i++){
if(freq[i]==true){
freq[i] = false;
break;
}
}
//implement a thread that will execute the critical section simultaneously as the (contd down)
//basestation leaves it critical section and then generates another request
UseFrequency freqInUse = new UseFrequency;
busy = freqInUse.start(i);
//returns control back to the main program
return 1;
}
}
class UseFrequency extends Thread {
int iFrequency=0;
UseFrequency(int i){
this.iFrequency = i;
}
//this class just allows the frequency to be used in parallel as the other basestations carry on making requests
public void run() {
try {
sleep(((int) (Math.random() * (Global.iParameter[5] - Global.iParameter[4] + 1) ) + Global.iParameter[4])*1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
CriticalSection.freq[iFrequency] = true;
stop();
}
No, this code will not even compile. For example, your "UseFrequency" class has a constructor and a run() method, but then you have two lines CriticalSection.freq[iFrequency] = true; and
stop(); that aren't in any method body - they are just sitting there on their own.
If you get the code to compile it still will not work like you expect because you have multiple threads and no concurrency control. That means the different threads can "step on eachother" and corrupt shared data, like your "freq" array. Any time you have multiple threads you need to protect access to shared variables with a synchronized block. The Java Tutorial on concurrency explains this here http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/essential/concurrency/index.html
Have you tried compiling and testing it? Are you using an IDE like Eclipse? You can step through your program in the debugger to see what its doing. The way your question is structured no one can tell either way if your program is doing the right or wrong thing, because nothing is specified in the comments of the code, nor in the question posed.
Related
I have a Hashmap that is created for each "mailer" class and each "agent" class creates a mailer.
My problem is that each of my "agents" creates a "mailer" that in turn creates a new hashmap.
What I'm trying to do is to create one Hashmap that will be used by all the agents(every agent is a thread).
This is the Agent class:
public class Agent implements Runnable {
private int id;
private int n;
private Mailer mailer;
private static int counter;
private List<Integer> received = new ArrayList<Integer>();
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Thread has started");
n = 10;
if (counter < n - 1) {
this.id = ThreadLocalRandom.current().nextInt(0, n + 1);
counter++;
}
Message m = new Message(this.id, this.id);
this.mailer.getMap().put(this.id, new ArrayList<Message>());
System.out.println(this.mailer.getMap());
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (i == this.id) {
continue;
}
this.mailer.send(i, m);
}
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (i == this.id) {
continue;
}
if (this.mailer.getMap().get(i) == null) {
continue;
} else {
this.received.add(this.mailer.readOne(this.id).getContent());
}
}
System.out.println(this.id + "" + this.received);
}
}
This is the Mailer class :
public class Mailer {
private HashMap<Integer, List<Message>> map = new HashMap<>();
public void send(int receiver, Message m) {
synchronized (map) {
while (this.map.get(receiver) == null) {
this.map.get(receiver);
}
if (this.map.get(receiver) == null) {
} else {
map.get(receiver).add(m);
}
}
}
public Message readOne(int receiver) {
synchronized (map) {
if (this.map.get(receiver) == null) {
return null;
} else if (this.map.get(receiver).size() == 0) {
return null;
} else {
Message m = this.map.get(receiver).get(0);
this.map.get(receiver).remove(0);
return m;
}
}
}
public HashMap<Integer, List<Message>> getMap() {
synchronized (map) {
return map;
}
}
}
I have tried so far :
Creating the mailer object inside the run method in agent.
Going by the idea (based on your own answer to this question) that you made the map static, you've made 2 mistakes.
do not use static
static means there is one map for the entire JVM you run this on. This is not actually a good thing: Now you can't create separate mailers on one JVM in the future, and you've made it hard to test stuff.
You want something else: A way to group a bunch of mailer threads together (these are all mailers for the agent), but a bit more discerning than a simple: "ALL mailers in the ENTIRE system are all the one mailer for the one agent that will ever run".
A trivial way to do this is to pass the map in as argument. Alternatively, have the map be part of the agent, and pass the agent to the mailer constructor, and have the mailer ask the agent for the map every time.
this is not thread safe
Thread safety is a crucial concept to get right, because the failure mode if you get it wrong is extremely annoying: It may or may not work, and the JVM is free to base whether it'll work right this moment or won't work on the phase of the moon or the flip of a coin: The JVM is given room to do whatever it feels like it needs to, in order to have a JVM that can make full use of the CPU's powers regardless of which CPU and operating system your app is running on.
Your code is not thread safe.
In any given moment, if 2 threads are both referring to the same field, you've got a problem: You need to ensure that this is done 'safely', and the compiler nor the runtime will throw errors if you fail to do this, but you will get bizarre behaviour because the JVM is free to give you caches, refuse to synchronize things, make ghosts of data appear, and more.
In this case the fix is near-trivial: Use java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap instead, that's all you'd have to do to make this safe.
Whenever you're interacting with a field that doesn't have a convenient 'typesafe' type, or you're messing with the field itself (one thread assigns a new value to the field, another reads it - you don't do that here, there is just the one field that always points at the same map, but you're messing with the map) - you need to use synchronized and/or volatile and/or locks from the java.util.concurrent package and in general it gets very complicated. Concurrent programming is hard.
I was able to solve this by changing the mailer to static in the Agent class
I'm currently working on somekind text-based 'RPG' game. I made two classes, first one is supposed to simulate road from one town to another and doing so there is a possibility that player will encounter enemy. Fighting logic is placed in another class and when player dies I call method which is supposed to load game from previous save or create new character and that works perfectly fine, but even when player died road is continued instead of breaking loop. LeaveTown class looks like this:
public class WorldMap {
boolean running=true;
public void leaveTown(Character character){
EnemyFactory factory = new EnemyFactory();
PerformAtack atack = new PerformAtack();
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
Random random = new Random();
int progress = 0;
while(running && progress!=100){
try {
System.out.print(sb.append("#"));
System.out.println(progress+"%");
if (random.nextDouble() * 10 < 2) {
atack.performFight(character,factory.generateRandomEnemy());
}
Thread.sleep(500);
}catch(Exception ex){}
progress = progress+5;
}
}
}
As you can see, I'm using while loop which is supposed to break when running variable is set to false or road is finished. When character dies I call method battleLost:
private void battleLost(Character character){
WorldMap map = new WorldMap();
System.out.println("You are dead.\nWould you like to try AGAIN or LOAD your last save");
System.out.println("Please type AGAIN or LOAD");
while(true) {
String choice = sc.nextLine().toUpperCase();
if (choice.equals("AGAIN")) {
map.running = false;
System.out.println("Create new character?");
break;
} else if (choice.equals("LOAD")) {
map.running = false;
save.readFromFile();
break;
} else
System.out.println("Try again.");
}
}
This method sets running variable in class WorldMap to false, but the while loop is continued instead of breaking. Im aware that problem is probably linked to using map.running = false; in wrong way.
I'd glad if anyone could explain me how this problem should be solved.
boolean running=true;
This variable should be part of Character class.
then, your while will just look like:
while(character.isRunning() && progress!=100)
and, within performFight you can update it to false when died.
I guess battleLost() belongs to PerformAtack class. so the local variable map inside the battleLost() does not affect the object that is controlling the road.
You can do two things:
make running static (and public) and then you can reference it from anywhere by the class name like this WolrdMap.runnning = false but this solution has problems if you decide to do things in parallel (e.g. multiple threads). Remmeber: static data is almost always a pitfall for multi-threaded design!
a better solution is to make atack.performFight return a boolean value and assign that value to the running var: running = atack.performFight(... this is better design in terms of thread safety, but you will have to propagate the boolean value from battleLost() (it too will have to return boolean) to `performFight()' and so on
Well,Change the access modifier for variable boolean running=true; to public static boolean running=true;
once you did that you can change this variable to false without creating an instance in order to break the loop, do something like that
private void battleLost(Character character){
WorldMap map = new WorldMap();
System.out.println("You are dead.\nWould you like to try AGAIN or LOAD your last save");
System.out.println("Please type AGAIN or LOAD");
while(WorldMap.running) {
String choice = sc.nextLine().toUpperCase();
if (choice.equals("AGAIN")) {
map.running = false;
System.out.println("Create new character?");
break;
} else if (choice.equals("LOAD")) {
map.running = false;
save.readFromFile();
break;
} else
System.out.println("Try again.");
}
public void breakTheLoop(){
WorldMap.running=false;
}
because of static is a class variable so it's value will be shared between all classes
Is there a way to identify whether the following method executed completely or returned halfway through(i.e at line no 3)
static int a=0;
static void test(){
if(a>10){
return;
}
a++;
}
The method was invoked by another method.(a might have been changed by it)
I cannot change the method declaration. I am dealing with an object I created from a java file created by someone else. I am not allowed to change the original file
Your method does almost nothing and no there is no way in this example you gave to know if the method returned before complete execution but if you willing to change the function to a boolean type you can return true at complete execution and false at incomplete.
static boolean test()
{
if(a>10)
return false;
a++;
return true;
}
Run the code under debugger like jdb and set the breakpoint on the internal return statement. If the program stops at this breakpoint, this obviously means that it would return through that statement.
To make things more automated, you could try to launch the debugger and control the debugger from a Java program through Runtime. This would make the approach applicable for more use cases, while not for all.
You could use
void test(int a) {
if (a > 10) {
return;
}
a++;
System.out.println("test executed completely!");
}
Or if you want to use the information programmatically
private boolean executedCompletely;
void test(int a) {
executedCompletely = false;
if (a > 10) {
return;
}
a++;
executedCompletely = true;
}
When you use your test method, you can check whether it ran completely this way:
int initialA = a;
test();
int finalA = a;
if (finalA != initialA) {
//a has been changed, therefore the method ran completely
} else {
//a has not been changed, therefore it was not incremented, therefore the method did not run completely
}
Is there any way I can return a value from a loop and continuing from where I left off ?
In the following snippet, I want to return the current value of currVm. But I am unable to do so.
In the innermost loop of the snippet :
while(c <= currVm) {
allocatedVm(currVm);
c++;
}
a function named allocatedVm is called. I want to return the value of currVm and start again from where I left off. Is there any way out ?
#Override
public int getNextAvailableVm() {
Set<String> dataCenters = confMap.keySet();
for (String dataCenter : dataCenters) {
LinkedList<DepConfAttr> list = confMap.get(dataCenter);
Collections.sort(list, new MemoryComparator());
int size = list.size() - 1;
int count = 0;
while(size >= 0) {
DepConfAttr dca = (DepConfAttr)list.get(count);
int currVm = dca.getVmCount();
int c = 0;
while(c <= currVm) {
allocatedVm(currVm); // RETURN currVm
c++;
}
count++;
size--;
}
}
}
The best approach would probably be to write a method returning an Iterable<Integer>. That's not as easy in Java as it is in languages which support generator functions (e.g. C# and Python) but it's still feasible. If the code is short, you can get away with a pair of (nested) anonymous inner classes:
public Iterable<Integer> foo() {
return new Iterable<Integer>() {
#Override public Iterator<Integer> iterator() {
return new Iterator<Integer>() {
// Implement hasNext, next and remove here
};
}
};
}
In your case I'd be tempted to break it into a separate non-anonymous class though, just for simplicity.
Anyway, the point of using Iterable is that an Iterator naturally has state - that's its purpose, basically. So it's a good fit for your requirements.
Another rather simpler approach would be to return all of the elements in one go, and make the caller perform the allocation on demand. Obviously that doesn't work well if there could be a huge number of elements, but it would be easier to understand.
not sure i understand what you need, but:
if you wish to notify the caller of the method that you've got a value during the running of the method, but don't wish to exit the method just yet, you can use listeners.
just create an interface as a parameter to your function, and have a function inside that will have the object as a parameter.
example:
interface IGotValueListener
{
public void onGotValue(MyClass obj);
}
public int getNextAvailableVm(IGotValueListener listener)
{
...
if(listener!=null)
listener.onGotValue(...);
}
now , for calling the method, you do:
int finalResult=getNextAvailableVm(new IGotValueListener ()
{
... //implement onGotValue
};
You can return from anywhere in your method , by just putting the return keyword. If you want to put a functionality to resume ur method from different places then u need to factor ur method in that way. You can use labels and if statements, set some static variables to mark the last execution place. If your application is not multi-threaded then u need not to worry with the use of static variable synchronization. Also if your method is too big and becoming hard to follow/read, then think about breaking it into smaller ones.
The error i am having here is a infinite or near infinite loop in my method calls and class's creating other class's constructors. What my program is trying to do is semi-randomly generate survey results based off actual statistics. I would highly appreciate not only some insight in whats going wrong here. But some advice and pointers on how to prevent this from happening and ways to analyze the error messages by myself. I get how some of the work but like i stated below i am new to programming im a freshman in college so programming is new to me. Thanks in advance and sorry for my previous post, thought i would take the time to give you guys an appropriate one.
Im new to programming this is my 2nd project ive done on my own so im sorry if its not the best.
This is my Test class:
public Tester()
{
randomGenerator = new Random();
probability = new Probability();
stats = new Statistics();
double chance = randomGenerator.nextDouble();
double gender = probability.getProbabilityOfMale();
if(chance > gender)
{
male = false;
stats.incrementFemale();
}else{
male = true;
stats.incrementMale();
}
age = randomGenerator.nextInt(49)+16;
int range = stats.getNumberOfQuestion();
for(int i=0;i<range;i++)
{
probabilities = probability.probOfAnswer(i);
answers = probability.getAnswers(i);
chance = randomGenerator.nextDouble();
int size = probabilities.size();
for(int j=0;j<size;j++)
{
double qTemp = chance - probabilities.get(j);
if(qTemp <= 0.0)
{
Answer aTemp = answers.get(j);
aTemp.incrementCounter();
answers.set(j,aTemp);
}
}
}
}
Statistics class:
public ArrayList<Answer> getAnswers(int index)
{
temp = survey.getAnswers(index);
return temp;
}
public int getMale()
{
return male;
}
public int getFemale()
{
return female;
}
public int getNumberOfQuestion()
{
return numberOfQuestion;
}
public void incrementNumberOfQuestion()
{
numberOfQuestion++;
}
public void incrementMale()
{
male++;
}
public void incrementFemale()
{
female++;
}
and probability class:
public Probability()
{
stats = new Statistics();
probOfAnswer = new ArrayList<Double>(0);
}
public ArrayList<Double> probOfAnswer(int index)
{
temp = stats.getAnswers(index);
int size = temp.size();
for(int i=0;i<size;i++)
{
aTemp = temp.get(i);
for(int j=0;j<size;j++)
{
Answer aTemp = temp.get(j);
sum += (double)aTemp.getCounter();
}
double number = (double)aTemp.getCounter();
probOfAnswer.add(number/sum);
sum = 0;
}
return probOfAnswer;
}
public ArrayList<Answer> getAnswers(int index)
{
temp = stats.getAnswers(index);
return temp;
}
public ArrayList<Double> getProbofAnswer()
{
return probOfAnswer;
}
public void probabilityOfMale()
{
double male = (double)stats.getMale();
double female = (double)stats.getFemale();
probabilityOfMale = male / (male + female);
}
public double getProbabilityOfMale()
{
return probabilityOfMale;
}
These are the only real important parts where the loop exsists the rest of the code is not needed to be uploaded.
Im having difficulty uploading my error message on this site its not accepting it as code in the code insert, then it wont let me submit the message afterwards so im going to upload the code elseware and link it.
http://forum.overdosed.net/index.php/topic/56608-this-is-unimportant/
But i dont know how long that forum will let me keep that post there ><
at Question.<init>(Question.java:17)
at Survey.addQuestion(Survey.java:23)
at Statistics.<init>(Statistics.java:52)
at Question.<init>(Question.java:17)
at Survey.addQuestion(Survey.java:23)
at Statistics.<init>(Statistics.java:52)
at Probability.<init>(Probability.java:19)
You need to check why Question is creating Statistics object and again Statistics is trying to create Question object leading to infinite recursion. As the line numbers are given you can take a look at corresponding lines.
Judging by the stack trace, the problem lies in three parts which you haven't shown us - the Question and Statistics constructors and the Survey.addQuestion method:
From the stack trace:
at Survey.addQuestion(Survey.java:23)
at Statistics.<init>(Statistics.java:52)
at Question.<init>(Question.java:17)
at Survey.addQuestion(Survey.java:23)
at Statistics.<init>(Statistics.java:52)
at Question.<init>(Question.java:17)
So your Question constructor is calling the Statistics constructor. But the Statistics constructor is then calling Survey.addQuestion, which is in turn calling the Question constructor.
It feels to me like there's much more construction going on than is really useful. Why would a Statistics constructor need to add anything to a survey? I wouldn't expect a Statistics class to even know about surveys and questions.
It's entirely possible that a lot of this can be fixed by passing a reference to an existing object to the constructors - so the Probability constructor may be better taking a Statistics reference in its constructor and using that for its stats field than creating a new Statistics object itself. It's hard to say without knowing what these classes are really meant to represent though... which may be part of the problem. Do you have a firm grasp of what the responsibility of each class is? Think about that carefully before making any code changes.
We don't have the relevant source code, but the error message says what's wrong:
Tester creates a Probability
Probability constructor creates a Statistics
Statistics constructor calls Survey.addQuestion()
addQuestion() creates a Question
Question creates a Statistics (goto 3 and loop infinitely)
I think you should probably pass objects around rather than creating them each time.