I am curious about how the following concepts typically execute inside a Java EE container, is one instance created per request, or does one instance serve all requests?
Servlets
Tags
I want to know this because lately i have been using a lot of StringBuffers in my custom tags, avoiding StringBuilder because it is not thread safe. Id like to know for sure how this stuff works so i can write better code
Both are correct. The container may reuse old instances for new requests and even create new instances if more requests are to be served.
Using StringBuilder should be safe as long as its usage does not cross the instances boundaries (by static usage, returning StringBuilders etc.).
So if you're using it whithin a function/method to create your String-output, your're safe to do so.
Some app servers implement thread-pooling, which will execute a certain number of requests per thread, switching load between them as necessary. Simpler engines will spool a thread per request. However, if you never access your StringBuilder from multiple-threads at the same time, you should never have an issue with regards to thread-safety.
Related
I'm using Hibernate in an embedded Jetty server, and I want to be able to parallelize my data processing with some multithreading and still have it all be in the same transaction. As Sessions are not thread safe this means I need a way to get multiple sessions attached to the same transaction, which means I need to switch away from the "thread" session context I've been using.
By my understanding of the documentation, this means I need to switch to JTA session context, but I'm having trouble getting that to work. My research so far seems to indicate that it requires something external to Hibernate in the server to provide transaction management, and that Jetty does not have such a thing built in, so I would have to pull in some additional library to do it. The top candidates I keep running across for that generally seem to be large packages that do all sorts of other stuff too, which seems wasteful, confusing, and distracting when I'm just looking for the one specific feature.
So, what is the minimal least disruptive setup and configuration change that will allow getCurrentSession() to return Sessions attached to the same transaction in different threads?
While I'm at it, I know that fetching objects in one thread and altering them in another is not safe, but what about reading their properties in another thread, for example calling toString() or a side effect free getter?
This is going to be a self-answered question, but I thought that such a specific question (and answer) could be of use to others...
What are the potential issues associated with enabling multi-threading in Google App Engine (GAE/J) using the element in appengine-web.xml?
I have looked at this for a project I'm working on, and I have written up what I have found in an analysis here: http://devcon5.blogspot.com
I would very much appreciate any comments or additional questions I should cover.
Thanks.
One important thing to mention is that during the loading request of an instance no additional requests are handled in other threads. Only after the first request is completely finished will the instance go into a multi-threaded mode. This is especially noticeable on loading the initial instance after a deploy (or after all instances died without idle instances).
This will impact applications that use URLFetch to call other servlets in the same application. The first request will try to call the same instance first, but that instance won't handle the call yet. After a timeout the scheduler will spin-up a second instance, after which the request is handled. (Latency on-top-of latency...)
We are creating a web app where we need to have concurrency for a few business cases. This application would be deployed in a tomcat container. I know that creating user defined threads in the web container is a bad idea and am trying to explore options that i have.
Have my multi-threaded library used as a JCA component. We are averse to using this approach because of the learning curve that might be involved.
I know that there's WorkManager API's available but i guess thats not implemented by tomcat so this option goes out.
I did some research and found out that CommonJ library is recommended for Tomcat. Has anyone used it?
Also, I see that there are ManagedExecutorService available but I am not sure how to use it and is it different from WorkManager API's (and the commonJ library)?
Any help on this appreciated. By the way, using JMS is out of question because of deployment environment. I am inclining towards points 3 and 4 but i do not have much knowledge on it. Could someone guide pls.
Since you're using Tomcat, don't worry about it and do whatever you want. The Servlet section of Java EE makes no mention of threads etc. That's mostly under the EJB section.
Tomcat itself doesn't do much at all in terms of worrying about managing threads, it's a pretty non-invasive container.
Its best to tie your threads to a ServletContextListener so that you can pay attention to the application lifecycle, and shutdown your stuff when you app shuts down, but beyond that, don't overly concern yourself about it and use whatever you're happy with.
Addenda -
The simple truth is Tomcat does not care, and it's not that sophisticated. Tomcat has a thread pool for each of the HTTP listeners and that's about the end of its level of management. Tomcat is not going to take threads from a quiet HTTP listener and dedicate them to a busy one, for example. If Tomcat was truly interested in how you create threads, it would prevent you from doing so -- and it doesn't.
That means that thread management outside of the HTTP context falls squarely on your shoulders as an implementor. Java EE exposes these kinds of facilities, and the interfaces make great reads. But the simple truth is that the theoretical capabilities espoused by the Java EE API docs, and the reality of modern implementations is far different, particularly on low end systems such as Tomcat.
Not to disparage Tomcat. Tomcat is a great piece of software. But for most of its use cases, the extra management capability simply is not necessary.
Setting up your own thread pool (using the JDK provided facilities) and working with your own thread lifecycle model will likely see you successfully through whatever project you're working on. It's really not a big deal.
There are a couple of options. Regardless container restrictions that might or might not be in place, spawning individual threads on demand is nearly always a bad idea. It's not that this wouldn't work in a Servlet environment, but the number of threads you can potentially create might get completely out of hand.
The simplest solution to go with is a plain old Java SE thread pool via a normal executer service. Start the pool in a Servlet listener and provide access to it via some static variable. Not overly pretty, but it gets the job done. Depending on your exact use case this might actually be the best solution (if your use case is pretty low-level).
Another option is to add OpenEJB to your war, and then take advantage of the #Asynchronous annotation.
Yet another option, is to realize that one typically uses Tomcat if the business requirements are extremely simple or low-level. That's pretty much the entire point of using something as bare bone a Tomcat. As soon as you find yourself in need of adding (tons of) libraries, you might have outgrown Tomcat and might be better of using a server that already has the functionality you need (in this case asynchronous execution). Examples are TomEE, GlassFish, Resin, JBoss AS, Geronimo, etc.
Every Servlet -Java EE base component for HTTP request processing- in your Web Application is a Singleton, and each request runs in its own independent thread so there is no need to start/stop user generated threads on your own. Your Web Container -in this case Tomcat- manages all that stuff.
Besides that, you need to have in mind some considerations for multi-threaded processing in your code. For example, since Servlets are singletons and many threads are spawned for this class is a bad idea to have instance attributes in this components.
I have used CommonJ many times and it works very well. It can be initialized and destroyed from a ServletContextListener.
I am confused if we should make our own threads in servlet or not,as they have threading mechanism
internally?. If yes how can we make sure if the program thread safe? How to implement thread safe mechanism in servlets.
You are asking two different questions:
I am confused if we should make our own threads in servlet or not,as
they have threading mechanism internally?.
Normally, you should not start threads in a Java EE application. If you need seperate threads, make sure you use a Scheduler Service that your application knows about, so that it has the chance to shut down the threads when the application is shut down. Quartz is what's used most of the time.
If yes how can we make sure if the program thread safe? How to
implement thread safe mechanism in servlets.
Servlets are just like any other Java class. Find a tutorial on thread safety or read Java Concurrency in Practice.
From what you write in the comment, I understand that you have a set of threads continuusly monitoring log-files and sending email if something interresting is found in the log.
First question: why is this a servlet? Is there a web-gui? What is this used for?
For the log-scanning part, I would have implemented that as a separate process outside of the servlet-container. For everything this process found which it needs to send somewhere, I would add a message to a JMS-queue. Then I would create a messagedriven bean to recieve messages from this queue and send them as email. (This is really an integration problem, transforming messages from JMS to email, you might want to look into something like Mule to solve this).
As for how to integrate this with your servlet, it depends on what your servlet does in addition to scanning logs (I suppose it presents the user with some kind of interface)
With this design, you can chose to re-write the programs generating the log in the future. Instead of having one program writing log and another program parsing the log, the first program might as well put the interresting message directly on the JMS-queue. In other words, you can change the log-generation part of your architecture in the future, without having to re-write the mail-sending part.
I also had a similar concern.
Only EJB specification disallows the creation of threads from the application.
It is ok to start a thread from a servlet.
I have done it many times with no problems but to be honest I am not 100% sure:
that this is allowed by container but is violating a standard
or
it is allowed by all containers.
But in Tomcat I never had an issue starting threads from a servlet.
You can make it thread safe the same way you do in every multithreading program.
You will use all the available constructs offered by Java for synchronization.
In a Message-Driven Bean am I restricted to the same rules of Session Beans (EJB3 or EJB3.1), i.e:
use the java.lang.reflect Java Reflection API to access information unavailable by way of the security rules of the Java runtime environment
read or write nonfinal static fields
use this to refer to the instance in a method parameter or result
access packages (and classes) that are otherwise made unavailable by the rules of Java programming language
define a class in a package
use the java.awt package to create a user interface
create or modify class loaders and security managers
redirect input, output, and error streams
obtain security policy information for a code source
access or modify the security configuration objects
create or manage threads
use thread synchronization primitives to synchronize access with other enterprise bean instances
stop the Java virtual machine
load a native library
listen on, accept connections on, or multicast from a network socket
change socket factories in java.net.Socket or java.net.ServerSocket, or change the stream handler factory of java.net.URL.
directly read or write a file descriptor
create, modify, or delete files in the filesystem
use the subclass and object substitution features of the Java serialization protocol
It is always a good idea not to create threads manually (ExecutorService seems fine in some cases though).
Actually MDBs are very often used to address this limitation: instead of creating a separate thread, send some task object (put something like MyJob extends Serializable in ObjectMessage) into the queue and let it be executed in MDB thread pool. This approach is much more heavyweight but scales very well and you don't have to manage any threads manually. In this scenario JMS is just a fancy way of running jobs asynchronously.
These EJB restrictions are typically not hard restrictions. In fact, they're not caveats on making your EJBs work properly, they're more like advisories on how to make your EJBs portable across EJB containers.
From time to time, some very fussy EJB container providers (cough.... WebSphere... cough) will actually enforce these restrictions through java security policies, but I would say about half of those restrictions are routinely ignored ( I mean just using log4j in your MDB potentially violates about 30% of them).
Violating the the other 70% probably indicates some architectural or design problem.
So, can you call System.exit() in an MDB ? The answer is yes, but only once... :)
It sounds like, in your case, you need some of these restrictions to reign in potentially misbehaving plugins. I don't know if MDBs are going to get you out of that problem. I suppose it depends on how much you trust the third party developers, but rather than use the invocation based models in EJB, I would install the components as JMX ModelMBeans. You can use the java security model to limit what they can do, but I suppose that would defeat the purpose.
Perhaps using some run (or load) time AOP byte code engineering, you could rewrite all requests for threads to be redirected to a per component thread factory that you allocate and limits the threads that can be created. Because you don't want to stop them from doing whatever it is that they do, you just don't want them to take down the whole server when they crash/stall/misbehave.
Interesting problem.