I have a midlet which has got a static variable. I need to keep the record of all the instances created in this variable. but it does not work like static variable. my code segments look like this. I am running this midlet on sun wireless toolkit 2.5.5. I can create many objects of same midlet from that toolkit but still my counter shows only 1.
public class SMS extends MIDlet implements CommandListener {
private Display display;
private TextField userID, password ;
public static int counter ;
public SMS() {
userID = new TextField("LoginID:", "", 10, TextField.ANY);
password = new TextField("Password:", "", 10, TextField.PASSWORD);
counter++;
}
public void startApp() {
display = Display.getDisplay(this);
loginForm.append(userID);
loginForm.append(password);
loginForm.addCommand(cancel);
loginForm.addCommand(login);
loginForm.setCommandListener(this);
display.setCurrent(loginForm);
public void commandAction(Command c, Displayable d) {
String label = c.getLabel();
System.out.println("Total Instances"+counter);
everytime, counter shows only 1 object created.
The only system I've seen that allows static variables to remain between 'invocations' of an application is Android. I've never once seen a J2ME device that maintains static data between invocations of a MIDlet. However, MIDlets within a MIDlet suite can share static data, as described here, while at least one of them is running.
If you want to maintain data between invocations of a MIDlet, you need to use the Record Store APIs in javax.microedition.rms, which provide access to a persistent store.
Your MIDlet is only instantiated once. Kind of.
The MIDP runtime will probably not allow you to launch the same MIDlet twice as long as it is already running.
If you exit the MIDlet, counter goes back to 0 because it is still a in-RAM value and the Java Virtual Machine process is terminated.
On some Nokia series40 phones, the JVM process is never terminated so you could use this to show how many times the MIDlet was created since the last time the phone was switched on.
Static variables are stored in a Class object in the JVM memory. You need to understand class loading (and the usual lack of support for class unloading in J2ME) to figure out what you can store in static variable.
I would suggest moving counter++; to startApp() as it could be called everytime the MIDlet is brought to the foreground.
That would also allow you to store counter in an RMS record for additional accuracy.
Related
I process messages from a queue. I use data from the incoming message to determine which class to use to process the message; for example origin and type. I would use the combination of origin and type to look up a FQCN and use reflection to instantiate an object to process the message. At the moment these processing objects are all simple POJOs that implement a common interface. Hence I am using a strategy pattern.
The problem I am having is that all my external resources (mostly databases accessed via JPA) are injected (#Inject) and when I create the processing object as described above all these injected objects are null. The only way I know to populate these injected resources is to make each implementation of the interface a managed bean by adding #stateless. This alone does not solve the problem because the injected members are only populated if the class implementing the interface is itself injected (i.e. container managed) as opposed to being created by me.
Here is a made up example (sensitive details changed)
public interface MessageProcessor
{
public void processMessage(String xml);
}
#Stateless
public VisaCreateClient implements MessageProcessor
{
#Inject private DAL db;
…
}
public MasterCardCreateClient implements MessageProcessor…
In the database there is an entry "visa.createclient" = "fqcn.VisaCreateClient", so if the message origin is "Visa" and the type is "Create Client" I can look up the appropriate processing class. If I use reflection to create VisaCreateClient the db variable is always null. Even if I add the #Stateless and use reflection the db variable remains null. It's only when I inject VisaCreateClient will the db variable get populated. Like so:
#Stateless
public QueueReader
{
#Inject VisaCreateClient visaCreateClient;
#Inject MasterCardCreateClient masterCardCreateClient;
#Inject … many more times
private Map<String, MessageProcessor> processors...
private void init()
{
processors.put("visa.createclient", visaCreateClient);
processors.put("mastercard.createclient", masterCardCreateClient);
… many more times
}
}
Now I have dozens of message processors and if I have to inject each implementation then register it in the map I'll end up with dozens of injections. Also, should I add more processors I have to modify the QueueReader class to add the new injections and restart the server; with my old code I merely had to add an entry into the database and deploy the new processor on the class path - didn't even have to restart the server!
I have thought of two ways to resolve this:
Add an init(DAL db, OtherResource or, ...) method to the interface that gets called right after the message processor is created with reflection and pass the required resource. The resource itself was injected into the QueueReader.
Add an argument to the processMessage(String xml, Context context) where Context is just a map of resources that were injected into the QueueReader.
But does this approach mean that I will be using the same instance of the DAL object for every message processor? I believe it would and as long as there is no state involved I believe it is OK - any and all transactions will be started outside of the DAL class.
So my question is will my approach work? What are the risks of doing it that way? Is there a better way to use a strategy pattern to dynamically select an implementation where the implementation needs access to container managed resources?
Thanks for your time.
In a similar problem statement I used an extension to the processor interface to decide which type of data object it can handle. Then you can inject all variants of the handler via instance and simply use a loop:
public interface MessageProcessor
{
public boolean canHandle(String xml);
public void processMessage(String xml);
}
And in your queueReader:
#Inject
private Instance<MessageProcessor> allProcessors;
public void handleMessage(String xml) {
MessageProcessor processor = StreamSupport.stream(allProcessors.spliterator(), false)
.filter(proc -> proc.canHandle(xml))
.findFirst()
.orElseThrow(...);
processor.processMessage(xml);
}
This does not work on a running server, but to add a new processor simply implement and deploy.
I'm begginer in multithreading. I recently started to writing something like multithreaded observer. I need some clarification.
Let's say I'm working with Subject, and I'm changing its state. Then Observers (in example - GUI widgets) have to be notified, so they could perform the update() method.
And there is my question: how am i handling those getValue() performed by many Observers? If it's just a getter for some variable, do i have to run it in new thread? Does it require any locking?
Or mayby there is a metod to just send those new value to GUI thread, and letting widgets there access those value. And again, can it be a single loop, or do i have to create another threads for every widget to get those value?
That's a difficult subject. Here are couple of things that will guide and help you with it.
Embrace eventual consistency. When one object updates on one thread, others will receive change notifications and update to the correct state eventually. Don't try to keep everything in sync all the time. Don't expect everything to be up to date all the time. Design your system to handle these situations. Check this video.
Use immutability especially for collections. Reading and writing to a collection from multiple threads can result in disasters. Don't do it. Use immutable collections or use snapshotting. Basically one object that will called from multiple thread will return a snapshot of the state of the collection. when a notification for a change is received, the reader (GUI in your case) will request a snapshot of the new state and update it accordingly.
Design rich Models. Don't use AnemicModels that have only setters and getters and let others manipulate them. Let the Model protect it's data and provide queries for it's state. Don't return mutable objects from properties of an object.
Pass data that describes changes with change notifications. This way readers (GUI) may sync their state only from the change data without having to read the target object.
Divide responsibility. Let the GUI know that it's single threaded and received notifications from the background. Don't add knowledge in your Model that it will be updated on a background thread and to know that it's called from the GUI and give it the responsibility of sending change requests to a specific thread. The Model should not care about stuff like that. It raises notifications and let subscribers handle them the way they need to. Let the GUI know that the change notification will be received on the background so it can transfer it to the UI thread.
Check this video. It describes different way you can do multithreading.
You haven't shown any code or specified language, so I'll give you an example in pseudo code using a Java/C# like language.
public class FolderIcon {
private Icon mIcon;
public Icon getIcon() { return mIcon; }
public FolderIcon(Icon icon) {
mIcon = icon;
}
}
public class FolderGUIElement : Observer {
private Folder mFolder;
private string mFolderPath;
public FolderGUIElement(Folder folder) {
mFolder = folder;
mFolderPath = mFolder.getPath();
folder.addChangeListener(this);
}
public void onSubjectChanged(change c) {
if(c instanceof PathChange) {
dispatchOnGuiThread(() => {
handlePathChange((PathChange)change);
});
}
}
handlePathChange(PathChange change) {
mFolderPath = change.NewPath;
}
}
public class Folder : Subject {
private string mPath;
private FolderIcon mIcon;
public string getPath() { return mPath; }
public FolderIcon getIcon() { return mIcon; }
public void changePath(string newPath) {
mPath = patnewPath;
notifyChanged(new PathChange(newPath));
}
public void changeIcon(FolderIcon newIcon) {
mIcon = newIcon;
notifyChanged(new IconChange(newIcon));
}
}
Notice couple of things in the example.
We are using immutable objects from Folder. That means that the GUI elements cannot get the value of Path or FolderIcon and change it thus affecting Folder. When changing the icon we are creating a brand new FolderIcon object instead of modifying the old one. Folder itself is mutable, but it uses immutable objects for it's properties. If you want you can use fully immutable objects. A hybrid approach works well.
When we receive change notification we read the NewPath from the PathChange. This way we don't have to call the Folder again.
We have changePath and changeIcon methods instead of setPath and setIcon. This captures the intent of our operations better thus giving our model behavior instead of being just a bag of getters and setters.
If you haven't read Domain Driven Design I highly recommend it. It's not about multithreading, but on how to design rich models. It's in my list of books that every developer should read. On concept in DDD is ValueObject. It's immutable and provide a great way to implement models and is especially useful in multithreaded systems.
I would like to know if it's prohibited to use an EJB in an infinite thread(since it can't be given back to the container).
Something like this:
#ManagedBean(eager = true)
#ApplicationScoped
public class TestListenner {
private ResultThread result;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
result = new ResultThread ();
Thread myThread = new Thread(result);
myThread.start();
}
public ResultThread getResult() {
return result;
}
}
And the thread:
public class ResultThread implements Runnable{
#EJB
private SomeService service;
private boolean continueWork = true;
public void run(){
while(continueWork){
service.doSomething();
//some proccessing
}
}
I'm working with EJB's since I started working with databases. I went over daofactories and the likes but I forgot about them(it was a year ago). I use them to do actions on my database when an user request a web page on my web app. But now I need to have a thread that calculate things in my database continuously to decrease the response time. If I cannot use EJB for the reason the container needs to have an handle on them, then what should I use ?
Hopefully I can use a class similar to what I'm used to use :
#Stateless
public class SomeServiceImpl implements SomeService {
#PersistenceContext(unitName = "my-pu")
private EntityManager em;
#Override
public void updateCategory(SomeClass theclass) {
em.merge(theclass);
}
}
Edit: The first answer by BalusC in this topic seems to imply that spawning threads in a ManagedBean wouldn't be dangerous in a case where no additional threads could be spawned. Since my bean is ApplicationScoped, which the web-app uses 1 and only 1 instance of it to do background work on the database (I've actually like a TOP 100 "posts" table that needs to be continually recalculated over time so I can query the table -with another bean- to have a fast answer).
What you have now won't work for at least one reason:
You can't inject resources into non-managed components. For the #EJB annotation to work, ResultThread ought to be a managed bean, and injected by the container. That means, that you must at least use CDI to inject it, rather than the new ResultThread you have now. What will work will look something like:
#Inject
private ResultThread result;
This way, the container gets in on the action.
The bottom line however, is that there are better ways of doing what you appear to be trying to do.
An EJB Timer
The new ManagedExecutor
Async EJBs
It may also interest you to know that EJBs are not allowed to spawn their own threads; in fact, it's frowned upon to do any handmade threading in the container. Why? The container is a managed environment - one where memory and concurrency have already been well thought out and designed. Your handspun thread breaks that model and any guarantees that the container may have been able to give you on your beans and other app components
Related:
Why is spawning threads in Java EE container discouraged?
You can't use your own Threads on Java EE container.
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/restrictions-142267.html#threads
The Java EE spec provide TimerServices for this kind of work.
https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/tutorial/doc/bnboy.html
I'm having issues with my Application Object. I am currently using a Service to simulate incoming data from an electronic game board. This data is represented as a 2D boolean array. Every five seconds the Service uses a method of the Application Object to update the array (setDetectionMap()). This array is being read by a Thread in my main Activity using another method (getDetectionMap()). After some debugging I am almost positive that the main Activity is not seeing the changes. Here is the code for my Application Object:
public class ChessApplication extends Application{
private static ChessApplication singleton;
private boolean[][] detectionMap;
public static ChessApplication getInstance(){
return singleton;
}
#Override
public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
singleton=this;
detectionMap=new boolean[8][8];
}
public boolean[][] getDetectionMap(){
return detectionMap;
}
public void setDetectionMap(boolean[][] newMap){
detectionMap=newMap;
Log.d("Chess Application","Board Changed");
}
}
I've checked my Manifest, I've rewritten my object declaration a dozen times, I've added LogCat tags to make sure that the code is executing when I think it should be, and I've even implemented the supposedly redundant Singleton code. Any ideas what could be causing this? Incidentally can anyone tell me how to view variable states as the activity is running? Thanks in advance.
Is your Activity calling getDetectionMap() to get the new map after the update occurs?
Because otherwise, it's holding onto a reference to the old boolean[][] array, wheras setDetectionMap(...) isn't actually updating the current data structure, it's just updating the "detectionMap" variable to point to a different one. As such, your main activity won't be aware of the swapout until the next time it calls getDetectionMap.
Easy fix: in setDetectionMap, manually copy values from newMap into detectionMap. Or, update the Activity's reference so it's looking at the right map.
One other observation entirely unrelated to the original question: It's quite unusual to override Application during Android development, and is usually considered a "code smell" unless you have a really good reason for doing so. In this case I imagine it's so that you can communicate between your service and Activity, but you create a middle-man where one isn't entirely necessary. Here's a useful SO thread on how to communicate directly between the two :)
Im working on a Windows Service in which I would like to have two threads. One thread should look for updates (in a RSS feed) and insert rows into a DB when updates is found.
When updates are found I would like to send notification via another thread, that accesses the DB, gets the messages and the recipients and then sends notifications.
Perhaps the best practice isn't to use two threads. Should I have db-connections in both threads?
Could anyone provide me with tips how to solve this?
The major reason to make an application or service multithreaded is to perform database or other background operations without blocking (i.e. hanging) a presentation element like a Windows form. If your service depends on very rapid polling or expects db inserts to take a very long time, it might make sense to use two threads. But I can't imagine that either would be the case in your scenario.
If you do decide to make your service multithreaded, the two major classes in C# that you want to look into are BackgroundWorker and ThreadPool. If you want to do multiple concurrent db inserts (for example, if you want to execute an insert for each of multiple RSS feeds polled at the same time), you should use a ThreadPool. Otherwise, use a BackgroundWorker.
Typically, you'd have a db access class that would have a method to insert a row. That method would create a background worker, add DoWork handler to some static method in that db access class to the background worker, then call DoWorkAsync. You should only have db connection settings in that one class in order to make maintaining the code easier. For example:
public static class DbAccess
{
public void InsertRow(SomeObject entity)
{
BackgroundWorker bg = new BackgroundWorker();
bg.DoWork += InsertRow_DoWork;
bg.RunWorkerCompleted += InsertRow_RunWorkerCompleted;
bg.RunWorkerAsync(entity);
}
private void InsertRow_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
BackgroundWorker bg = sender as BackgroundWorker;
SomeObject entity = e.Argument as SomeObject;
// insert db access here
}
private void InsertRow_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
// send notifications
// alternatively, pass the InsertRow method a
// delegate to a method in the calling class that will notify
}
}