I have the following program, where I am using java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch and without using await() method it's working fine.
I am new to concurrency and want to know the purpose of await(). In CyclicBarrier I can understand why await() is needed, but why in CountDownLatch?
Class CountDownLatchSimple:
public static void main(String args[]) {
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(3);
Thread one = new Thread(new Runner(latch),"one");
Thread two = new Thread(new Runner(latch), "two");
Thread three = new Thread(new Runner(latch), "three");
// Starting all the threads
one.start(); two.start(); three.start();
}
Class Runner implements Runnable:
CountDownLatch latch;
public Runner(CountDownLatch latch) {
this.latch = latch;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" is Waiting.");
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
latch.countDown();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" is Completed.");
}
OUTPUT
two is Waiting.
three is Waiting.
one is Waiting.
one is Completed.
two is Completed.
three is Completed.
CountDownLatch is the synchronization primitive which is used to wait for all threads completing some action.
Each of the thread is supposed to mark the work done by calling countDown() method. The one who waits for the action to be completed should call await() method. This will wait indefinitely until all threads mark the work as processed, by calling the countDown(). The main thread can then continue by processing the worker's results for example.
So in your example it would make sense to call await() at the end of main() method:
latch.await();
Note: there are many other use cases of course, they don't need to be threads but whatever that runs usually asynchronously, the same latch can be decremented several times by the same task etc. The above describes just one common use case for CountDownLatch.
Related
I have method in class MyClassB which is triggered asynchronously from a method of MyClassA:
public void getProductCall()
{
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
productRequest = service.createS4ProductRequest(getRepriceItems());
//Below is a rest call to another system
String response = pricing.getS4ProductResponse(quote.getAssetQuoteNrAndVrsn(), productRequest);
//I'm using the below 2 lines to check from ClassA's method to see if this process has ended
setProductResponse(response);
productPriceProcessEnded=true;
} catch (Exception e) {
productPriceErrorOccured=true;
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
}
This is the piece of code in MyClassA i used to check if the above method is complete.
for(int i=0;i<1000000000;i++)
{
if(!networkAsynCalls.isListPriceErrorOccured())
{
if(networkAsynCalls.isListPriceprocessEnded())
{
return networkAsynCalls.getListReponse();
}
else
{
Thread.sleep(250);
continue;
}
}
else
return null;
}
instead of using this random for loop can i use some inbuilt method or service pool or something ?
Because,
1) This thread on method is in another class
2) In class MyClassB i have few more methods like this, so i need to check the status of all the methods in MyClassA
Thanks for any help.
If I undestand what you're trying to do is dispatch some code to be ran asynchronously, then be able to wait until it is completed (successfully or failed). If that's the case, you should take a look at Futures.
Here is an example based on the Javadoc:
FutureTask<String> future =
new FutureTask<String>(new Callable<String>() {
public String call() {
// do stuff
return "result";
}});
This code creates an object "future" that can be invoked to execute searcher.search(target). At this point, the code is not executed at all. You simply have an object representing a computation that may be executed asynchronously. To do so, you'd call:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
executor.execute(future);
This snippet created an Executor (which is a fixed pool of 5 threads), then handed over the future to it for execution. The executor will run the computation from Future asynchronously.
Future offers some methods (see the Javadoc) to wait until completion, cancel, check completion status, etc. For example,
String result = future.get();
will block, waiting for the result indefinitely. A get(10, TimeUnit.SECONDS) will wait for 10 seconds and if the future has not completed, throw.
May be my header would not be correct.
I have started java multithread concept with programming. since i have read inside synchronized block only one thread will inter on a particular object lock. But i have confused after looking the output of this program.
package com.example.classandobjectlevellock;
class MyThread implements Runnable
{
Object ob = new Object();
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" Is waitng");
try {
this.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class ClassAndObjectLevelLock {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
MyThread task1 = new MyThread();
MyThread task2 = new MyThread();
Thread t1 = new Thread(task1,"Thread1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(task1,"Thread2");
Thread t3 = new Thread(task2,"Thread3");
t1.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
t2.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
t3.start();
}
}
Output:
Thread1 Is waitng
Thread2 Is waitng
Thread3 Is waitng
If i am not wrong, Thread-1 and thread-3 is entering into synchronized method because it having two different target object. But why Thread-2 is entering into Synchronized block?
Please help me for understanding of this .
Thanks in advance.
Calling wait() causes the lock to be released.
Per the wait() Javadocs:
Causes the current thread to wait until another thread invokes the
notify() method or the notifyAll() method for this object. In
other words, this method behaves exactly as if it simply performs the
call wait(0).
The current thread must own this object's monitor. The thread
releases ownership of this monitor and waits until another thread
notifies threads waiting on this object's monitor to wake up either
through a call to the notify method or the notifyAll method. The
thread then waits until it can re-obtain ownership of the monitor and
resumes execution.
This is for my academic purpose only. Are the tasks that we add to the executor service are really executing in parallel. Well this is my example that raised this question
Runnable Class
public Tasks implement Runnable{
int taskCount;
public Tasks(int count){
this.taskCount = count;
}
public void run(){
System.out.println("In Task :"+taskcount +" run method");
}
}
Main Class
Class MyTest {
public static void main(String args[]){
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
for(inti=0;i<10;i++){
Tasks taskObj = new Tasks(i);
service.submit(taskObj);
}
service.shutdown();
}
}
As soon as i submit a taskObj to the executor, the taskObj run() is invoked.
What if i have to something like this,
Add all the taskObj to the executor , the run() must not get invoked
Execute all the task objects at one shot. All the taskobj run() must be executed in parallel/concurrently
Please let me know
Thanks...V
If I understood you right, one way to solve this would be to use thread barriers. This might sound strange, but is actually implemented quite easy. You just take a variable (lets name it traffic-light) and make every thread loop on it. If you started enough threads (starting a new thread might consume some time) you just change it to green and all your threads will start execution at the same time.
For academic purposes we used to take an atomic-integer as counter (initialized with 0) and started n threads. The task of each threads was to increase the counter and then loop on it until it reached n. Like this you'll have all threads as parallel as possible.
If you still want to go with a thread pool system, you might have to implement your own thread system, where threads can wait upon a signal prior to grabbing work.
good luck
I have a problem while working with JavaFX and Threads. Basically I have two options: working with Tasks or Platform.runLater. As I understand Platform.runLater should be used for simple/short tasks, and Task for the longer ones. However, I cannot use any of them.
When I call Thread, it has to pop up a captcha dialog in a middle of task. While using Task, it ignores my request to show new dialog... It does not let me to create a new stage.
On the other hand, when I use Platform.runLater, it lets me show a dialog, however, the program's main window freezes until the pop up dialog is showed.
I need any kind of solution for this. If anyone knows how to deal with this or had some similar experience and found a solution I am looking forward to hearing from you!
As puce says, you have to use Task or Service for the things that you need to do in background. And Platform.runLater to do things in the JavaFX Application thread from the background thread.
You have to synchronize them, and one of the ways to do that is using the class CountDownLatch.
Here is an example:
Service<Void> service = new Service<Void>() {
#Override
protected Task<Void> createTask() {
return new Task<Void>() {
#Override
protected Void call() throws Exception {
//Background work
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
Platform.runLater(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try{
//FX Stuff done here
}finally{
latch.countDown();
}
}
});
latch.await();
//Keep with the background work
return null;
}
};
}
};
service.start();
Use a Worker (Task, Service) from the JavaFX Application thread if you want to do something in the background.
http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/api/javafx/concurrent/package-summary.html
Use Platform.runLater from a background thread if you want to do something on the JavaFX Application thread.
http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/api/javafx/application/Platform.html#runLater%28java.lang.Runnable%29
It's too late to answer but for those who have the error, here is the solution XD
You can use one Thread.
Use the lambda expression for the runnable in the thread and the runlater.
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
//Here write all actions that you want execute on background
Platform.runLater(() -> {
//Here the actions that use the gui where is finished the actions on background.
});
});
t.start();
You can user directly this code
Don't forget you can't send non-final variable in thread .
you can send final variable in thread
//final String me="ddddd";
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// me = me + "eee";
//...Your code....
}
}).start();
Use in
your code
try/catch
I have a program which runs a thread. The thread performs processing all the time and it uses some synchronized queue.
The class snapshot is as follows:
public class MyClass:IDisposable
{
private Thread myThread = new Thread(threadFunc);
private volatile bool runThread = true;
public MyClass()
{
myThread.Start();
}
public Dispose()
{
runThread = false;
}
private void threadFunc()
{
try
{
while(runThread){
queue.Take(); //This method blocks the thread if queue is empty. It uses Monitor class
//do some processing
}
}
catch(Exception e){...}
}
private void otherFunc()
{
queue.enqueue(...);//this method is executed by main thread and uses lock while adding element to the queue.
}
}
When I call Dispose() method, the thread exists threadFunc() method, but after a sec I get an execption from this func "Unable to avaluate expression...", as if the tread was terminated while doing some work. Maybe it has just released from queue.Take() blocking and has no context to run. I know I'm missing something...
How can I solve such problem and terminate the thread from the Dispose method.
Many thanks!!!
Use the overload of Take that accepts a CancellationToken. You can get a reference to a token by using the CancellationTokenSource which also has the Cancel method that you can call from Dispose to unblock the Take method. You can read more cancellation here.
Use the poison pill approach: See this thread