So my task is this:
Instantiate two object of the same class
Provide a constructor argument, to designate a thread as even and another as odd .
Start both threads right one after other
Odd thread prints odd numbers from 0 to 1000
Even thread prints even numbers from 0 to 1000
However they should be in sync the prints should be 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .....
One number on each line
However I can't seem to get the locks to release correctly. I've tried reading some of the similar problems on here but they all use multiple classes. What am I doing wrong?
Edit: My main class is doing this -
NumberPrinter oddPrinter = new NumberPrinter("odd");
NumberPrinter evenPrinter = new NumberPrinter("even");
oddPrinter.start();
evenPrinter.start();
and my output is -
odd: 1
even: 2
...
public class NumberPrinter extends Thread {
private String name;
private int starterInt;
private boolean toggle;
public NumberPrinter(String name) {
super.setName(name);
this.name=name;
if(name.equals("odd")) {
starterInt=1;
toggle = true;
}
else if(name.equals("even")) {
starterInt=2;
toggle = false;
}
}
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
int localInt = starterInt;
boolean localToggle = toggle;
if(name.equals("odd")) {
while(localInt<1000) {
while(localToggle == false)
try {
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println(name+": "+localInt);
localInt +=2;
localToggle = false;
notify();
}
}
else {
while(localInt<1000) {
while(localToggle == true)
try {
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println(name+": "+localInt);
localInt +=2;
localToggle = true;
notify();
}
}
}
}
The key problem here is that the two threads have no way to coordinate with each other. When you have a local variable (localToggle in this case) nothing outside the method can observe or alter its value.
If you share one object with both threads, however, its state can change, and if used correctly, those state changes will be visible to both threads.
You will see examples where the shared object is an AtomicInteger, but when you use synchronized, wait() and notify(), you don't need the extra concurrency overhead built into the atomic wrappers.
Here's a simple outline:
class Main {
public static main(String... args) {
Main state = new Main();
new Thread(new Counter(state, false)).start();
new Thread(new Counter(state, true)).start();
}
int counter;
private static class Counter implements Runnable {
private final Main state;
private final boolean even;
Counter(Main state, boolean even) {
this.state = state;
this.even = even;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(state) {
/* Here, use wait and notify to read and update state.counter
* appropriately according to the "even" flag.
*/
}
}
}
}
I'm not clear whether using wait() and notify() yourself is part of the assignment, but an alternative to this outline would be to use something like a BlockingQueue to pass a token back and forth between the two threads. The (error-prone) condition monitoring would be built into the queue, cleaning up your code and making mistakes less likely.
I finally got it working in a way that meets the standards required by my assignment.
Thank you all for your input. I'll leave the answer here for anyone who might need it.
public class Demo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
NumberPrinter oddPrinter = new NumberPrinter("odd");
NumberPrinter evenPrinter = new NumberPrinter("even");
oddPrinter.start();
evenPrinter.start();
System.out.println("Calling thread Done");
}
public class NumberPrinter extends Thread {
private int max = 1000;
static Object lock = new Object();
String name;
int remainder;
static int startNumber=1;
public NumberPrinter(String name) {
this.name = name;
if(name.equals("even")) {
remainder=0;
}else {
remainder=1;
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(startNumber<max) {
synchronized(lock) {
while(startNumber%2 !=remainder) {
try {
lock.wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(name+": "+startNumber);
startNumber++;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
Ok, so, I have a java class in which every method must run in a thread.
only one thread is executed per time and at a specific time.
I've implemented like this, with a inner class that extends Thread.
private class MyOperation extends Thread {
public static final String M1 = "method1";
public static final String M2 = "method2";
public static final String M3 = "method3";
protected long scheduledStartTime = 0;
private String type;
public MyOperation(String type, long milliSecondsToWait) {
this.type = type;
scheduledStartTime = System.currentTimeMillis() + mlliSecondsToWait;
}
#Override
public void run() {
switch(type){
case M1:
doMethod1();
break;
case M2:
doMethod3();
break;
case M3:
doMethod3();
break;
}
setCurrentOperation(null);
}
}
private void setCurrentOperation(MyOperation task) {
synchronized (currentOperation) {
this.currentOperation = task;
}
}
then I have the Thread queue and the current running thread
private MyOperation currentOperation;
private Queue <MyOperation> operationList;
And I'm fetching tasks like this:
private void fetchTasks() {
new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(currentOperation == null && !operationList.isEmpty()) {
currentOperation = getOperation();
while(currentOperation.scheduledStartTime > System.currentTimeMillis()) {
// do nothing, wait for proper time;
}
currentOperation.start();
}
}
}
}.start();
}
private MyOperation getOperation() {
synchronized (operationList) {
return operationList.remove();
}
}
and I'm adding thread to the queue like this, for example:
addOperation(new MyOperation(M1, 5));
private void addOperation(MyOperation task) {
synchronized (operationList) {
operationList.add(task);
}
}
My questions are:
Is there a better way to run each method in a diffent thread?
Is this way of fetching the threads queue correct?
Thank you very much
Just a little thing: if your operationsList is empty or the currentOperation is not null your thread starts going in circles really fast.
You could use Thread.wait() and .notify() to avoid this.
Also you are using currentOperation with and without synchronized. This could get you into trouble.
Have you condsidered using a ScheduledExecutorService (java.util.concurrent) to schedule your tasks?
One of the SCJP practice exam questions I ran across supplied the code in the SafeDeposit class. The answer to the question claimed that if another class used multiple threads that it would be possible for the unsynchronized (non thread safe) getInstance() method to return multiple instances of SafeDeposit. I have tried, and tried and cannot get the toString() method to indicate that there is ever more than one SafeDeposit instance created. Am I missing something, or is this just one of those things that "could" happen but is really, really, really unlikely to happen?
class SafeDeposit {
private static SafeDeposit sd;
public static SafeDeposit getInstance() {
if(sd == null) sd = new SafeDeposit();
return sd;
}
private SafeDeposit() { }
}
public class PrivCon {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String checker;
SafeThief wizard = new SafeThief();
SafeThief wizard2 = new SafeThief();
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i ++) {
new Thread(wizard).start();
new Thread(wizard2).start();
}
}
}
class SafeThief implements Runnable {
public void run() {
System.out.println(SafeDeposit.getInstance().toString());
}
}
is this just one of those things that "could" happen but is really, really, really unlikely to happen?
Try this code and see how unlikely it really is:
class SafeDeposit {
private static SafeDeposit sd;
public static SafeDeposit getInstance() {
if(sd == null) sd = new SafeDeposit();
return sd;
}
private SafeDeposit() { }
static void warmup() {
for (int i = 0; i < 100_000; i++) getInstance();
sd = null;
}
}
public class PrivCon {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SafeDeposit.warmup();
SafeThief wizard = new SafeThief();
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i ++) new Thread(wizard).start();
}
}
class SafeThief implements Runnable {
public void run() {
try { Thread.sleep(100); } catch (InterruptedException e) { }
System.out.println(SafeDeposit.getInstance().toString());
}
}
This is my typical output:
test.SafeDeposit#52e5376a
test.SafeDeposit#34780af5
test.SafeDeposit#351775bc
test.SafeDeposit#2b1be57f
test.SafeDeposit#6ae6235d
test.SafeDeposit#6276e1db
test.SafeDeposit#52e5376a
test.SafeDeposit#302b2c81
test.SafeDeposit#60f00e0f
test.SafeDeposit#1732a4df
Hardly any duplicates at all.
If you want to know why, it's because I added warmup code, which caused the getInstance() method to be JIT-compiled into an aggressively optimized piece of code which leverages the liberties given by the Java Memory Model.
I also added some sleep time to the beginning of the Runnable because as soon as one thread writes the value, those threads which start after that point will reliably observe the write. So it is better to first let all threads start, then let them call getInstance.
Correct. This is NOT thread safe,
if(sd == null) // Thread B here <---
sd = new SafeDeposit(); // Thread A here <---
return sd;
So if you have Thread A and B as above you will get two instances of your Singleton instantiated. To see it, add a print method in the constructor like this =
private SafeDeposit() {
System.out.println("In SafeDeposit constructor - Should only print ONCE");
try {
Thread.sleep(2000); // <-- Added to help reproduce multiple
// instances being created.
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
SafeDeposit constructor is running atomically in your code and you're not seeing the problem. To simulate a more real situation, change SafeDeposit constructor to the code below and you will see the result by yourself.
private SafeDeposit() {
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
The way to stress a singleton is to use a CountDownLatch to make a horde of threads descend on it all at once. Sadly this code fails to print anything other than 1 but I suspect that is because I am testing it on a one-core laptop. Would someone test it on a multicore CPU and see if it prints anything else?
See comments below for tests results returning result > 1 meaning that more than one instance of the supposed singleton was actually created.
public class Test {
static class SafeDeposit {
private static SafeDeposit sd;
public static SafeDeposit getInstance() {
if (sd == null) {
sd = new SafeDeposit();
}
return sd;
}
private SafeDeposit() {
}
}
static final Set<SafeDeposit> deposits = Collections.newSetFromMap(new ConcurrentHashMap<SafeDeposit,Boolean>());
static class Gun implements Runnable {
private final CountDownLatch wait;
public Gun (CountDownLatch wait) {
this.wait = wait;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// One more thread here and ready.
wait.countDown();
// Wait for the starting pistol.
wait.await();
// Grab an instance - nnnnnnnnow!!!.
SafeDeposit safe = SafeDeposit.getInstance();
// Store it in the Set.
deposits.add(safe);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Test.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
// Use that many Threads
private static final int ArmySize = 1000;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
// The Latch will wait for all threads to be ready.
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(ArmySize);
Thread[] threads = new Thread[ArmySize];
for ( int i = 0; i < ArmySize; i++ ) {
// Make all threads and start them.
threads[i] = new Thread(new Gun(latch));
threads[i].start();
}
// Wait for all to complete.
for ( int i = 0; i < ArmySize; i++ ) {
threads[i].join();
}
// How many unique Safes did we et?
System.out.println(deposits.size());
}
}
Can someone please help me out.
I need to use two threads in a way that one thread will run permanently while(true) and will keep track of a positioning pointer (some random value coming in form a method). This thread has a logic, if the value equals something, it should start the new thread. And if the value does not equal it should stop the other thread.
Can someone give me some code snippet (block level) about how to realize this?
Create a class that implements Runnable. There you'll make a run() method.
Like:
public class StackOverflow implements Runnable{
private Thread t = null;
public void run(){
}
public void setAnotherThread(Thread t){
this.t = t;
}
}
On the main class, you'll create 2 instances of Thread based on the other class you created.
StackOverflow so1 = new StackOverflow();
StackOverflow so2 = new StackOverflow();
Thread t1 = new Thread(so1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(so2)
Then you set one thread in the other, so you can control it.
t1.setAnotherThread(so2);
t2.setAnotherThread(so1);
Then you do what you need to do.
Ok if I'm not mistaken, you want to have one class that could be run as a "Thread" or as a (lets call it) a "sub-Thread".
But how to do that with one run method? just declare a boolean variable that specifies whether the thread object is a sub-thread or a parent thread, and accordingly declare two constructors, one would create a parent thread and the other would create a sub thread, and to be able to stop the sub-thread declare another variable called stop that is default to false.
class ThreadExample extends Thread {
private boolean sub = false;
private ThreadExample subThread = null;
public boolean stop = false;
public ThreadExample() {
}
public ThreadExample(boolean sub) {
this.sub = sub;
}
public void run() {
if (sub) {
runSubMethod();
} else {
runParentMethod();
}
}
public void runParentMethod() {
boolean running = true;
while (running) {
if (getRandomValue() == some_other_value) {
if (getSubThread().isAlive()) {
continue;
}
getSubThread().start();
} else {
getSubThread().makeStop();
}
}
}
public void runSubMethod(){
while(true){
//do stuff
if (stop)
break;
}
}
public int getRandomValue() {
//your "Random Value"
return 0;
}
private ThreadExample getSubThread() {
if (subThread == null) {
subThread = new ThreadExample(true);
}
return subThread;
}
public void makeStop(){
stop = true;
}
}
Here is a simple idea how you can implement as many threads as you like in a class:
class MultipleThreads{
Runnable r1 = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
... code to be executed ...
}
};
//-----
Runnable r2 = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
... code to be executed ...
}
};
//--- continue as much you like
public static void main (String[] args){
Thread thr1 = new Thread(r1);
Thread thr2 = new Thread(r2);
thr1.start();
thr2.start();
}
}
Hope it helps!!
For communicating between the two threads, one simple solution is to set a boolean type volatile static variable, and have it set from one thread and put it in while(flag) condition in the other thread.
You can control the other thread using this method.
And if you have waiting processes or Thread.sleep() and you want to break the thread without having it to finish it, your interrupts by catching the exception.
This question is related to my question on existing coroutine implementations in Java. If, as I suspect, it turns out that there is no full implementation of coroutines currently available in Java, what would be required to implement them?
As I said in that question, I know about the following:
You can implement "coroutines" as threads/thread pools behind the scenes.
You can do tricksy things with JVM bytecode behind the scenes to make coroutines possible.
The so-called "Da Vinci Machine" JVM implementation has primitives that make coroutines doable without
bytecode manipulation.
There are various JNI-based approaches to coroutines also possible.
I'll address each one's deficiencies in turn.
Thread-based coroutines
This "solution" is pathological. The whole point of coroutines is to avoid the overhead of threading, locking, kernel scheduling, etc. Coroutines are supposed to be light and fast and to execute only in user space. Implementing them in terms of full-tilt threads with tight restrictions gets rid of all the advantages.
JVM bytecode manipulation
This solution is more practical, albeit a bit difficult to pull off. This is roughly the same as jumping down into assembly language for coroutine libraries in C (which is how many of them work) with the advantage that you have only one architecture to worry about and get right.
It also ties you down to only running your code on fully-compliant JVM stacks (which means, for example, no Android) unless you can find a way to do the same thing on the non-compliant stack. If you do find a way to do this, however, you have now doubled your system complexity and testing needs.
The Da Vinci Machine
The Da Vinci Machine is cool for experimentation, but since it is not a standard JVM its features aren't going to be available everywhere. Indeed I suspect most production environments would specifically forbid the use of the Da Vinci Machine. Thus I could use this to make cool experiments but not for any code I expect to release to the real world.
This also has the added problem similar to the JVM bytecode manipulation solution above: won't work on alternative stacks (like Android's).
JNI implementation
This solution renders the point of doing this in Java at all moot. Each combination of CPU and operating system requires independent testing and each is a point of potentially frustrating subtle failure. Alternatively, of course, I could tie myself down to one platform entirely but this, too, makes the point of doing things in Java entirely moot.
So...
Is there any way to implement coroutines in Java without using one of these four techniques? Or will I be forced to use the one of those four that smells the least (JVM manipulation) instead?
Edited to add:
Just to ensure that confusion is contained, this is a related question to my other one, but not the same. That one is looking for an existing implementation in a bid to avoid reinventing the wheel unnecessarily. This one is a question relating to how one would go about implementing coroutines in Java should the other prove unanswerable. The intent is to keep different questions on different threads.
I would take a look at this: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/coroutines.html, its pretty interesting and should provide a good place to start. But of course we are using Java so we can do better (or maybe worse because there are no macros :))
From my understanding with coroutines you usually have a producer and a consumer coroutine (or at least this is the most common pattern). But semantically you don't want the producer to call the consumer or visa-versa because this introduces an asymmetry. But given the way stack based languages work we will need to have someone do the calling.
So here is a very simple type hierarchy:
public interface CoroutineProducer<T>
{
public T Produce();
public boolean isDone();
}
public interface CoroutineConsumer<T>
{
public void Consume(T t);
}
public class CoroutineManager
{
public static Execute<T>(CoroutineProducer<T> prod, CoroutineConsumer<T> con)
{
while(!prod.IsDone()) // really simple
{
T d = prod.Produce();
con.Consume(d);
}
}
}
Now of course the hard part is implementing the interfaces, in particular it is difficult to break a computation into individual steps. For this you would probably want a whole other set of persistent control structures. The basic idea is that we want to simulate non-local transfer of control (in the end its kinda like we're simulating a goto). We basically want to move away from using the stack and the pc (program-counter) by keeping the state of our current operations in the heap instead of on the stack. Therefore we are going to need a bunch of helper classes.
For example:
Let's say that in an ideal world you wanted to write a consumer that looked like this (psuedocode):
boolean is_done;
int other_state;
while(!is_done)
{
//read input
//parse input
//yield input to coroutine
//update is_done and other_state;
}
we need to abstract the local variable like is_doneand other_state and we need to abstract the while loop itself because our yield like operation is not going to be using the stack. So let's create a while loop abstraction and associated classes:
enum WhileState {BREAK, CONTINUE, YIELD}
abstract class WhileLoop<T>
{
private boolean is_done;
public boolean isDone() { return is_done;}
private T rval;
public T getReturnValue() {return rval;}
protected void setReturnValue(T val)
{
rval = val;
}
public T loop()
{
while(true)
{
WhileState state = execute();
if(state == WhileState.YIELD)
return getReturnValue();
else if(state == WhileState.BREAK)
{
is_done = true;
return null;
}
}
}
protected abstract WhileState execute();
}
The Basic trick here is to move local variables to be class variables and turn scope blocks into classes which gives us the ability to 're-enter' our 'loop' after yielding our return value.
Now to implement our producer
public class SampleProducer : CoroutineProducer<Object>
{
private WhileLoop<Object> loop;//our control structures become state!!
public SampleProducer()
{
loop = new WhileLoop()
{
private int other_state;//our local variables become state of the control structure
protected WhileState execute()
{
//this implements a single iteration of the loop
if(is_done) return WhileState.BREAK;
//read input
//parse input
Object calcluated_value = ...;
//update is_done, figure out if we want to continue
setReturnValue(calculated_value);
return WhileState.YIELD;
}
};
}
public Object Produce()
{
Object val = loop.loop();
return val;
}
public boolean isDone()
{
//we are done when the loop has exited
return loop.isDone();
}
}
Similar tricks could be done for other basic control flow structures. You would ideally build up a library of these helper classes and then use them to implement these simple interfaces which would ultimately give you the semantics of co-routines. I'm sure everything I've written here can be generalized and expanded upon greatly.
I'd suggest to look at Kotlin coroutines on JVM. It falls into a different category, though. There is no byte-code manipulation involved and it works on Android, too. However, you will have to write your coroutines in Kotlin. The upside is that Kotlin is designed for interoperability with Java in mind, so you can still continue to use all your Java libraries and freely combine Kotlin and Java code in the same project, even putting them side-by-side in the same directories and packages.
This Guide to kotlinx.coroutines provides many more examples, while the coroutines design document explains all the motivation, use-cases and implementation details.
Kotlin uses the following approach for co-routines
(from https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/coroutines.html):
Coroutines are completely implemented through a compilation technique (no support from the VM or OS side is required), and suspension works through code transformation. Basically, every suspending function (optimizations may apply, but we'll not go into this here) is transformed to a state machine where states correspond to suspending calls. Right before a suspension, the next state is stored in a field of a compiler-generated class along with relevant local variables, etc. Upon resumption of that coroutine, local variables are restored and the state machine proceeds from the state right after suspension.
A suspended coroutine can be stored and passed around as an object that keeps its suspended state and locals. The type of such objects is Continuation, and the overall code transformation described here corresponds to the classical Continuation-passing style. Consequently, suspending functions take an extra parameter of type Continuation under the hood.
Check out the design document at https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-coroutines/blob/master/kotlin-coroutines-informal.md
I just came across this question and just want to mention that i think it might be possible to implement coroutines or generators in a similar way C# does. That said i don't actually use Java but the CIL has quite similar limitations as the JVM has.
The yield statement in C# is a pure language feature and is not part of the CIL bytecode. The C# compiler just creates a hidden private class for each generator function. If you use the yield statement in a function it has to return an IEnumerator or an IEnumerable. The compiler "packs" your code into a statemachine-like class.
The C# compiler might use some "goto's" in the generated code to make the conversion into a statemachine easier. I don't know the capabilities of Java bytecode and if there's something like a plain unconditional jump, but at "assembly level" it's usually possible.
As already mentioned this feature has to be implemented in the compiler. Because i have only little knowledge about Java and it's compiler i can't tell if it's possible to alter / extend the compiler, maybe with a "preprocessor" or something.
Personally i love coroutines. As a Unity games developer i use them quite often. Because i play alot of Minecraft with ComputerCraft i was curious why coroutines in Lua (LuaJ) are implemented with threads.
There is also Quasar for Java and Project Loom at Oracle where extensions are made to the JVM for fibers and continuations. Here is a presentation of Loom on Youtoube. There are several more. Easy to find with a little searching.
Project Loom: https://jdk.java.net/loom/ introduce Continuations to Java.
An example:
static final ContinuationScope scope=new ContinuationScope("TST");
public static void main(String[] args) {
example1();
}
// *********************************************************************
// *** EXAMPLE 1: Co-routine with three active phases:
// *********************************************************************
public static void example1() {
Continuation coroutine=new Continuation(scope,new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Part 1 - Statements");
Continuation.yield(scope); // DETACH 1
System.out.println("Part 2 - Statements");
Continuation.yield(scope); // DETACH 2
System.out.println("Part 3 - Statements");
}});
coroutine.run(); // Vil utføre Part 1.
System.out.println("Returns here after first DETACH(Yield)");
coroutine.run(); // Vil utføre Part 2.
System.out.println("Returns here after second DETACH(Yield)");
coroutine.run(); // Vil utføre Part 3.
System.out.println("Returns here after 'FINAL END'");
System.out.println("Next line should be: IllegalStateException: Continuation terminated");
coroutine.run(); // IllegalStateException: Continuation terminated
}
I have a Coroutine class that I use in Java. It is based on threads and using threads has the advantage of allowing parallel operation, which on multicore machines can be an advantage. Therefore you might want to consider a thread based approach.
There's an another choice is here for Java6+
A pythonic coroutine implementation:
import java.lang.ref.WeakReference;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference;
class CorRunRAII {
private final List<WeakReference<? extends CorRun>> resources = new ArrayList<>();
public CorRunRAII add(CorRun resource) {
if (resource == null) {
return this;
}
resources.add(new WeakReference<>(resource));
return this;
}
public CorRunRAII addAll(List<? extends CorRun> arrayList) {
if (arrayList == null) {
return this;
}
for (CorRun corRun : arrayList) {
add(corRun);
}
return this;
}
#Override
protected void finalize() throws Throwable {
super.finalize();
for (WeakReference<? extends CorRun> corRunWeakReference : resources) {
CorRun corRun = corRunWeakReference.get();
if (corRun != null) {
corRun.stop();
}
}
}
}
class CorRunYieldReturn<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> {
public final AtomicReference<ReceiveType> receiveValue;
public final LinkedBlockingDeque<AtomicReference<YieldReturnType>> yieldReturnValue;
CorRunYieldReturn(AtomicReference<ReceiveType> receiveValue, LinkedBlockingDeque<AtomicReference<YieldReturnType>> yieldReturnValue) {
this.receiveValue = receiveValue;
this.yieldReturnValue = yieldReturnValue;
}
}
interface CorRun<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> extends Runnable, Callable<YieldReturnType> {
boolean start();
void stop();
void stop(final Throwable throwable);
boolean isStarted();
boolean isEnded();
Throwable getError();
ReceiveType getReceiveValue();
void setResultForOuter(YieldReturnType resultForOuter);
YieldReturnType getResultForOuter();
YieldReturnType receive(ReceiveType value);
ReceiveType yield();
ReceiveType yield(YieldReturnType value);
<TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> TargetYieldReturnType yieldFrom(final CorRun<TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> another);
<TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> TargetYieldReturnType yieldFrom(final CorRun<TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> another, final TargetReceiveType value);
}
abstract class CorRunSync<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> implements CorRun<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> {
private ReceiveType receiveValue;
public final List<WeakReference<CorRun>> potentialChildrenCoroutineList = new ArrayList<>();
// Outside
private AtomicBoolean isStarted = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private AtomicBoolean isEnded = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private Throwable error;
private YieldReturnType resultForOuter;
#Override
public boolean start() {
boolean isStarted = this.isStarted.getAndSet(true);
if ((! isStarted)
&& (! isEnded())) {
receive(null);
}
return isStarted;
}
#Override
public void stop() {
stop(null);
}
#Override
public void stop(Throwable throwable) {
isEnded.set(true);
if (throwable != null) {
error = throwable;
}
for (WeakReference<CorRun> weakReference : potentialChildrenCoroutineList) {
CorRun child = weakReference.get();
if (child != null) {
child.stop();
}
}
}
#Override
public boolean isStarted() {
return isStarted.get();
}
#Override
public boolean isEnded() {
return isEnded.get();
}
#Override
public Throwable getError() {
return error;
}
#Override
public ReceiveType getReceiveValue() {
return receiveValue;
}
#Override
public void setResultForOuter(YieldReturnType resultForOuter) {
this.resultForOuter = resultForOuter;
}
#Override
public YieldReturnType getResultForOuter() {
return resultForOuter;
}
#Override
public synchronized YieldReturnType receive(ReceiveType value) {
receiveValue = value;
run();
return getResultForOuter();
}
#Override
public ReceiveType yield() {
return yield(null);
}
#Override
public ReceiveType yield(YieldReturnType value) {
resultForOuter = value;
return receiveValue;
}
#Override
public <TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> TargetYieldReturnType yieldFrom(CorRun<TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> another) {
return yieldFrom(another, null);
}
#Override
public <TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> TargetYieldReturnType yieldFrom(CorRun<TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> another, TargetReceiveType value) {
if (another == null || another.isEnded()) {
throw new RuntimeException("Call null or isEnded coroutine");
}
potentialChildrenCoroutineList.add(new WeakReference<CorRun>(another));
synchronized (another) {
boolean isStarted = another.start();
boolean isJustStarting = ! isStarted;
if (isJustStarting && another instanceof CorRunSync) {
return another.getResultForOuter();
}
return another.receive(value);
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
this.call();
}
catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
stop(e);
return;
}
}
}
abstract class CorRunThread<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> implements CorRun<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> {
private final ExecutorService childExecutorService = newExecutorService();
private ExecutorService executingOnExecutorService;
private static final CorRunYieldReturn DUMMY_COR_RUN_YIELD_RETURN = new CorRunYieldReturn(new AtomicReference<>(null), new LinkedBlockingDeque<AtomicReference>());
private final CorRun<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> self;
public final List<WeakReference<CorRun>> potentialChildrenCoroutineList;
private CorRunYieldReturn<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> lastCorRunYieldReturn;
private final LinkedBlockingDeque<CorRunYieldReturn<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType>> receiveQueue;
// Outside
private AtomicBoolean isStarted = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private AtomicBoolean isEnded = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private Future<YieldReturnType> future;
private Throwable error;
private final AtomicReference<YieldReturnType> resultForOuter = new AtomicReference<>();
CorRunThread() {
executingOnExecutorService = childExecutorService;
receiveQueue = new LinkedBlockingDeque<>();
potentialChildrenCoroutineList = new ArrayList<>();
self = this;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
self.call();
}
catch (Exception e) {
stop(e);
return;
}
stop();
}
#Override
public abstract YieldReturnType call();
#Override
public boolean start() {
return start(childExecutorService);
}
protected boolean start(ExecutorService executorService) {
boolean isStarted = this.isStarted.getAndSet(true);
if (!isStarted) {
executingOnExecutorService = executorService;
future = (Future<YieldReturnType>) executingOnExecutorService.submit((Runnable) self);
}
return isStarted;
}
#Override
public void stop() {
stop(null);
}
#Override
public void stop(final Throwable throwable) {
if (throwable != null) {
error = throwable;
}
isEnded.set(true);
returnYieldValue(null);
// Do this for making sure the coroutine has checked isEnd() after getting a dummy value
receiveQueue.offer(DUMMY_COR_RUN_YIELD_RETURN);
for (WeakReference<CorRun> weakReference : potentialChildrenCoroutineList) {
CorRun child = weakReference.get();
if (child != null) {
if (child instanceof CorRunThread) {
((CorRunThread)child).tryStop(childExecutorService);
}
}
}
childExecutorService.shutdownNow();
}
protected void tryStop(ExecutorService executorService) {
if (this.executingOnExecutorService == executorService) {
stop();
}
}
#Override
public boolean isEnded() {
return isEnded.get() || (
future != null && (future.isCancelled() || future.isDone())
);
}
#Override
public boolean isStarted() {
return isStarted.get();
}
public Future<YieldReturnType> getFuture() {
return future;
}
#Override
public Throwable getError() {
return error;
}
#Override
public void setResultForOuter(YieldReturnType resultForOuter) {
this.resultForOuter.set(resultForOuter);
}
#Override
public YieldReturnType getResultForOuter() {
return this.resultForOuter.get();
}
#Override
public YieldReturnType receive(ReceiveType value) {
LinkedBlockingDeque<AtomicReference<YieldReturnType>> yieldReturnValue = new LinkedBlockingDeque<>();
offerReceiveValue(value, yieldReturnValue);
try {
AtomicReference<YieldReturnType> takeValue = yieldReturnValue.take();
return takeValue == null ? null : takeValue.get();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return null;
}
#Override
public ReceiveType yield() {
return yield(null);
}
#Override
public ReceiveType yield(final YieldReturnType value) {
returnYieldValue(value);
return getReceiveValue();
}
#Override
public <TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> TargetYieldReturnType yieldFrom(final CorRun<TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> another) {
return yieldFrom(another, null);
}
#Override
public <TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> TargetYieldReturnType yieldFrom(final CorRun<TargetReceiveType, TargetYieldReturnType> another, final TargetReceiveType value) {
if (another == null || another.isEnded()) {
throw new RuntimeException("Call null or isEnded coroutine");
}
boolean isStarted = false;
potentialChildrenCoroutineList.add(new WeakReference<CorRun>(another));
synchronized (another) {
if (another instanceof CorRunThread) {
isStarted = ((CorRunThread)another).start(childExecutorService);
}
else {
isStarted = another.start();
}
boolean isJustStarting = ! isStarted;
if (isJustStarting && another instanceof CorRunSync) {
return another.getResultForOuter();
}
TargetYieldReturnType send = another.receive(value);
return send;
}
}
#Override
public ReceiveType getReceiveValue() {
setLastCorRunYieldReturn(takeLastCorRunYieldReturn());
return lastCorRunYieldReturn.receiveValue.get();
}
protected void returnYieldValue(final YieldReturnType value) {
CorRunYieldReturn<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> corRunYieldReturn = lastCorRunYieldReturn;
if (corRunYieldReturn != null) {
corRunYieldReturn.yieldReturnValue.offer(new AtomicReference<>(value));
}
}
protected void offerReceiveValue(final ReceiveType value, LinkedBlockingDeque<AtomicReference<YieldReturnType>> yieldReturnValue) {
receiveQueue.offer(new CorRunYieldReturn(new AtomicReference<>(value), yieldReturnValue));
}
protected CorRunYieldReturn<ReceiveType, YieldReturnType> takeLastCorRunYieldReturn() {
try {
return receiveQueue.take();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return null;
}
protected void setLastCorRunYieldReturn(CorRunYieldReturn<ReceiveType,YieldReturnType> lastCorRunYieldReturn) {
this.lastCorRunYieldReturn = lastCorRunYieldReturn;
}
protected ExecutorService newExecutorService() {
return Executors.newCachedThreadPool(getThreadFactory());
}
protected ThreadFactory getThreadFactory() {
return new ThreadFactory() {
#Override
public Thread newThread(final Runnable runnable) {
Thread thread = new Thread(runnable);
thread.setUncaughtExceptionHandler(new Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler() {
#Override
public void uncaughtException(Thread thread, Throwable throwable) {
throwable.printStackTrace();
if (runnable instanceof CorRun) {
CorRun self = (CorRun) runnable;
self.stop(throwable);
thread.interrupt();
}
}
});
return thread;
}
};
}
}
Now you can use pythonic coroutines in this way
(e.g. fibonacci numbers)
Thread Version:
class Fib extends CorRunThread<Integer, Integer> {
#Override
public Integer call() {
Integer times = getReceiveValue();
do {
int a = 1, b = 1;
for (int i = 0; times != null && i < times; i++) {
int temp = a + b;
a = b;
b = temp;
}
// A pythonic "yield", i.e., it returns `a` to the caller and waits `times` value from the next caller
times = yield(a);
} while (! isEnded());
setResultForOuter(Integer.MAX_VALUE);
return getResultForOuter();
}
}
class MainRun extends CorRunThread<String, String> {
#Override
public String call() {
// The fib coroutine would be recycled by its parent
// (no requirement to call its start() and stop() manually)
// Otherwise, if you want to share its instance and start/stop it manually,
// please start it before being called by yieldFrom() and stop it in the end.
Fib fib = new Fib();
String result = "";
Integer current;
int times = 10;
for (int i = 0; i < times; i++) {
// A pythonic "yield from", i.e., it calls fib with `i` parameter and waits for returned value as `current`
current = yieldFrom(fib, i);
if (fib.getError() != null) {
throw new RuntimeException(fib.getError());
}
if (current == null) {
continue;
}
if (i > 0) {
result += ",";
}
result += current;
}
setResultForOuter(result);
return result;
}
}
Sync(non-thread) version:
class Fib extends CorRunSync<Integer, Integer> {
#Override
public Integer call() {
Integer times = getReceiveValue();
int a = 1, b = 1;
for (int i = 0; times != null && i < times; i++) {
int temp = a + b;
a = b;
b = temp;
}
yield(a);
return getResultForOuter();
}
}
class MainRun extends CorRunSync<String, String> {
#Override
public String call() {
CorRun<Integer, Integer> fib = null;
try {
fib = new Fib();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
String result = "";
Integer current;
int times = 10;
for (int i = 0; i < times; i++) {
current = yieldFrom(fib, i);
if (fib.getError() != null) {
throw new RuntimeException(fib.getError());
}
if (current == null) {
continue;
}
if (i > 0) {
result += ",";
}
result += current;
}
stop();
setResultForOuter(result);
if (Utils.isEmpty(result)) {
throw new RuntimeException("Error");
}
return result;
}
}
Execution(Both versions will work):
// Run the entry coroutine
MainRun mainRun = new MainRun();
mainRun.start();
// Wait for mainRun ending for 5 seconds
long startTimestamp = System.currentTimeMillis();
while(!mainRun.isEnded()) {
if (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTimestamp > TimeUnit.SECONDS.toMillis(5)) {
throw new RuntimeException("Wait too much time");
}
}
// The result should be "1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55"
System.out.println(mainRun.getResultForOuter());
Instead of using any other method just create a wrapper class for java
/**
* This class will be used run java code in the kotlin coroutines
* #author : prustyA : 17/06/2022
*/
class CoroutineJava {
//Scope
private val context: CoroutineContext = Dispatchers.IO
private val scope = CoroutineScope(context)
/**
* This method will be used to return current coroutine context
* #author : prustyA : 17/06/2022
*/
fun getContext() = context
/**
* This method will be used to start executing the method block
* #author : prustyA : 17/06/2022
*/
fun launch(block: () -> Unit) {
scope.launch { block() }
}
/**
* This method will be used to change the context and run the block
* #author : prustyA : 17/06/2022
*/
fun launchWithContext(context: CoroutineContext,block: () -> Unit) {
scope.launch {
withContext(context) { block() }
}
}
}