Should I call thread.join in onDestroy() - android

Is it good to call Thread.join in onDestroy? Or just tell the thread to stop and leave it?
For example:
public class MyActivity extends Activity {
private Thread myThread;
private volatile boolean running = true;
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
myThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while(running) {
// Do something
}
}
});
myThread.start();
}
public void onDestroy() {
super.onDestroy();
running = false;
try {
myThread.join(); // Is it good to calling it here? Or just let it fininsh itself?
} catch(InterruptedException e){}
}
}
I know calling join() might block the UI thread, but what would happen if the activity finishes before the thread without calling join()?
What does the system do to the threads after the activity is destroyed? Does it wait for them, put them in background, or kill them?

No, don't. Thread.join() doesn't destroy a Thread- it waits for it to finish. This could take a very long time (or forever). It should only be called if doing so won't make the app unresponsive (if its not on the UI thread) and if you absolutely cannot continue without that thread being finished. Neither one is true here.

Related

Can't wait for thread conclusion inside onPause

I need to destroy a thread before application suspend. This is my code:
public class MyThread extends Thread
{
public boolean mRun = false;;
#Override
public void run()
{
while (mRun)
{
.....
}
}
}
Activity:
#Override
public void onPause() {
if (mThread != null)
{
mThread.mRun = false;
try { mThread.join(); }
catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
super.onPause();
}
But i'm pretty sure that the android system do not wait my thread conclusion and pause my application before it. How can i force thread conclusion?
This is the way, I used in my code meet your requirement.Hope, this will be helping you too. If you find a better solution, Please share it.
In the below snippet, mThread is thread got created in onCreate. OnDestroy is a method that would be called before your activity destroyed.Its a best place to empty the allocated resources.
#Override
public void onDestroy() {
super.onDestroy();
if(null != mThread) {
Thread dummyThread = mThread;
mThread = null;
dummyThread.interrupt(); // Post an interrupt request to this thread.
}
}
Cheers !
Are you sure that you are not getting an InterruptedException?
Try putting a stacktrace in the catch sentence...and also check if your thread isAlive().
You cannot do that. Thread.join is a blocking potentially long operation that must not be done on the UI Thread (onPause being on the UI Thread).
You can ask your thread to stop, (setting mRun to false is a commonly accepted way of doing so), but you cannot exclicitely wait on it.
To be sure , mark the thread as daemon, always check a flag if doing a repetitive task in a thread, like in a loop. Also, call interrupt, which will take care of blocking IO or network calls.
myThread.setDaemon(true)
and
cancelFlag = true;
myThread.interrupt();

Stop Previously running thread which was created in previous class in android

I just need to stop a thread which was created in previous run time of the same application. This is the scenario. I'm retrieving data from database for the notification using thread in background, But when I start that application again, number of threads are increasing. I need to stop this. I think its better to stop the background running thread in onCreate() method of the application's main class. But noway to do it. Please help me on this thing as soon as possible.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Shehan.
Keep a static reference to the running Thread in your activity class. Inside your thread you need to have a boolean variable you can set or a method you can call that will cause your thread to complete. In onCreate() you can check if you have a running thread, and if so, tell it to stop. Here's a code example:
In your activity:
private static Thread myThread;
In your activity, when you create the thread:
if (myThread != null) {
if (myThread.isAlive()) {
myThread.running = false; // Tell the thread to stop running now
}
}
myThread = new Thread(...);
myThread.start();
In your thread:
public boolean running = true; // Initator of this thread should set this to false to make the thread complete
public void run() {
while (running) {
// do whatever your thread does in a loop
}
}
You can stop the ruuning threads onDestroy() of activity.
please find the below eg:
static boolean stopThread=false;
public myThread implements Ruunable{
public void run(){
while(true){
//your logic
if(stopThread)
break;
}
}
#Override
protected void onDestroy()
{
stopThread=true;
}

Using a Service with A Timer to Update a View

I'm not sure if this is the correct way to go about but I will try and explain what I want to do.
I have an Activity which creates a fragment called TemporaryFragment with a label. What I want to do is create and start a service with a Timer in it and that Timer then updates the time in that TextView.
The way I am thinking of going is somehow, when the Service is started, passing the TextView from the Activity to the Service and then the Service keeping a reference to it.
Another possible way is to make the Activity become a listener of the Service and then calling a method in the Service to update the TextView.
Any thoughts would be great and maybe some options.
Thanks in advance.
ADDITION
I'm sorry, I should also specify that I need this timer to run in the background. So when the application is sent to the background, I need the timer to carry on and only stop when I tell it to.
Service is not ideal for such minor task like this, moreover, Service can be run independently of activity. Also spawning new thread or using timer which introduces new thread into the application is not ideal for this relatively minor reason if you are thinking in the terms of mobile applications.
Instead use Handler in your fragment.
create handler in your fragment
private Handler mHandler = new Handler();
to execute your defined task call
mHandler.postDelayed(mUpdateTask, 1000);
or
mHandler.post(mUpdateTask);
and define your task in the fragment
private Runnable mUpdateTask = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
Toast.makeText(getActivity(), "hello world", Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
mHandler.postDelayed(this, 1000);
}
};
If you are showing time-like information instead of countdown-like one, use
mHandler.removeCallbacks(mUpdateTimeTask);
in onPause() method to stop executing your task if the activity is not visible as updating UI isn't relevant and it saves battery (you start task again in onResume() method)
Basically, the idea behind the timer is eventually I am going to add some tracking into my application and therefore need it to continue running even if the application isn't in the foreground – Disco S2
Based on this comment I suggest you to use a local service which resides in the background, doing it's stuff (start a thread from Service#onStart), until it gets stopped by stopService(..).
Activities on the other hand may bind and unbind to that service (see: bindService(..)) to get notified about updates or to communicate with the service in any way.
I would use a more simple approach by using a Thread:
public class MainActivity extends Activity implements Callback {
private static final int MSG_UPDATE = 1;
private static final long INTERVAL = 1000; // in ms
private final Handler handler = new Handler(this);
private Thread worker;
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
setContentView(R.layout.activity_main);
}
#Override
public boolean handleMessage(Message msg) {
switch (msg.what) {
case MSG_UPDATE:
updateView();
return true;
}
return false;
}
private void updateView() {
// TODO tbd
}
#Override
protected void onStart() {
super.onStart();
// start background thread
worker = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
try {
Thread.sleep(INTERVAL);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
// send message to activity thread
handler.sendEmptyMessage(MSG_UPDATE);
}
}
});
worker.start();
}
#Override
protected void onStop() {
super.onStop();
// stop background thread
worker.interrupt();
try {
worker.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
worker = null;
}
}
You can use the TimerTask Class for this. Override the TimerTask.run() method and then add that TimerTask to Timer class.
Also check this question: controlling a task with timer and timertask

Stopping/Destroying a Thread

I have a Service that launches a Thread and a Runnable like so.
t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
doSomething();
}
});
t.start();
The reason for the thread is to perform an Async task doSomething(). For now lets not worry about the other class AsyncTask. I have tried it and it does not work for my case. Edit: I can't use AsyncTask because it is meant for the UI thread only. This piece of code has to operate inside a Service, so nope, no AsyncTask :(
doSomething() contains some external libs so the issue I am having is that it can potentially be hung at one of the commands, without return any value (hence no error checking can even be done)
To work around this, I will want to, at some point of time, destroy the Service.
stopService(new Intent("net.MyService.intent));
This works fine and is easily verified on the phone. However, the Thread which was created above will continue to run even when the Service that spawned it is destroyed.
I am thus looking for the correct commands to insert in the Service's onDestroy() which will clean up the Thread for me.
t.destroy();
t.stop();
are both depreciated and cause application crashes.
I took this code from somewhere
#Override
public void onDestroy() {
Thread th = t;
t = null;
th.interrupt();
super.onDestroy();
}
but it still does not work, the thread continues to run. Any help guys?
The thread destroy and stop methods are inherently deadlock prone and not safe. Their existence also gives the illusion that there might be some way of halting another thread immediately when something else tells it to.
I understand your thinking, from your point of view their is one main thread, and when this thread hasn't received a response from it's worker thread in a while you'd like to kill it and restart it, without caring what it's up to. But the reason those methods are deprecated is you should care what the thread is up to. A lot.
What if the thread has a lock around a variable you need to use later? What if a thread has a file handle open? In all these cases, and many more, simply stopping the thread at it's current operation would leave things in mess -- quite likely your application would just crash further down the line.
So in order for a thread to be interruptible or cancel-able or stoppable, it has to manage this itself. If a thread or operation provides no way for itself to be interrupted, then you cannot interrupt it - it is assumed to do so would be unsafe.
If you runnable is literally
public void run() {
doSomething();
}
then there is no way to interrupt it. One would hope that if doSomething were a long operation that there might be a way to either interact with it incrementally with something like
public void run() {
while (running) {
MyParser.parseNext();
}
}
or to be able to pass in a variable by reference which indicates whether the thread is interrupted or not, and hopefully the method would interrupt itself at suitable location.
Remember a blocking operation is blocking. There is no way to get around that, you cannot cancel it part way through.
Alternative answer
Use the following code:
MyThread thread; // class field
Create and start the thread as you do it right now.
thread = new MyThread();
thread.start();
When the service is destroyed, "signal" the thread to quit
public void onDestroy() {
// Stop the thread
thread.abort = true;
thread.interrupt();
}
Here is thread implementation
//another class or maybe an inner class
class MyThread extends Thread {
syncronized boolean abort = false;
//ugly, I know
public void run() {
try {
if(!abort) doA();
if(!abort) doB();
if(!abort) doC();
if(!abort) doD();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Log.w("tag", "Interrupted!");
}
}
}
You might want to read the following:
How do you kill a thread in Java?
Thread Primitive Deprecation as already pointed by Claszen
http://www.devx.com/tips/Tip/31728 - based my code from here, but there are some issues with the code!
I think that you could rely on catching the exception and not check abort but I decided to keep it that way.
UPDATE
I've seen this sample in codeguru:
public class Worker implements Runnable {
private String result;
public run() {
result = blockingMethodCall();
}
public String getResult() {
return result;
}
}
public class MainProgram {
public void mainMethod() {
...
Worker worker = new Worker();
Thread thread = new Thread(worker);
thread.start();
// Returns when finished executing, or after maximum TIME_OUT time
thread.join(TIME_OUT);
if (thread.isAlive()) {
// If the thread is still alive, it's still blocking on the methodcall, try stopping it
thread.interrupt();
return null;
} else {
// The thread is finished, get the result
return worker.getResult();
}
}
}
Did you check the Java Thread Primitive Deprecation Documentation which is referenced in the Thread API JavaDoc. You will find some hints to handle your problem.
why don't you use an AsyncTask?
A task can be cancelled at any time by
invoking cancel(boolean). Invoking
this method will cause subsequent
calls to isCancelled() to return true.
After invoking this method,
onCancelled(Object), instead of
onPostExecute(Object) will be invoked
after doInBackground(Object[])
returns. To ensure that a task is
cancelled as quickly as possible, you
should always check the return value
of isCancelled() periodically from
doInBackground(Object[]), if possible
(inside a loop for instance.)
I like to take the following approach:
class MyHandler extends Handler {
final Semaphore stopEvent = new Semaphore(0);
#Override
public void handleMessage(Message msg) {
try {
while (!stopEvent.tryAcquire(0, TimeUnit.SECONDS)) {
doSomething();
if (stopEvent.tryAcquire(SLEEP_TIME, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
break;
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException ignored) {
}
stopSelf();
}
}
On service onDestroy just release the stopEvent:
#Override
public void onDestroy() {
myHandler.stopEvent.release();
myHandler = null;
super.onDestroy();
}
Better to use global variable stopThread, stop thread once variable changed to true.
btnStop.setOnClickListener(new OnClickListener() {
#Override
public void onClick(View arg0){
stopThread = true;
}
});
public void run() {
while (!stopThread) {
//do something
}
}
I think the best way to create and communicate with another thread is to use an AsyncTask. Heres an example of one:
public class Task extends AsyncTask<Void, Void, Void> {
private static final String TAG = "Task";
private boolean mPaused;
private Runnable mRunnable;
public Task(Runnable runnable) {
mRunnable = runnable;
play();
}
#Override
protected Void doInBackground(Void... params) {
while (!isCancelled()) {
if (!mPaused) {
mRunnable.run();
sleep();
}
}
return null;
}
private void sleep() {
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Log.w(TAG, e.getMessage());
}
}
public void play() {
mPaused = false;
}
public void pause() {
mPaused = true;
}
public void stop() {
pause();
cancel(true);
}
public boolean isPaused() {
return mPaused;
}
}
You can now easily use this class, and start the thread by writing:
Task task = new Task(myRunnable);
task.execute((Void) null);
Along with this you can easily pause or stop the thread from looping:
Example of pausing and playing the thread:
mButton.setOnClickListener(new View.OnClickListener() {
#Override
public void onClick(View v) {
if (task.isPaused()) {
task.play();
} else {
task.pause();
}
}
});
Example of stopping and starting the thread:
mButton.setOnClickListener(new View.OnClickListener() {
#Override
public void onClick(View v) {
if (task.isCancelled()) {
task = new Task(myRunnable);
task.execute((Void) null);
} else {
task.stop();
}
}
});

removeCallbacks not stopping runnable

I am calling from a method:
myHandler.postDelayed(mMyRunnableHide, 6000);
which calls:
public Runnable mMyRunnableHide = new Runnable()
{
public void run()
{
mTextDisplay.setText("");
DisplayX();
}
};
if a button on screen is clicked I want to stop the runnable:
Button next = (Button) findViewById(R.id.Breaction);
next.setOnClickListener(new View.OnClickListener() {
public void onClick(View view) {
myHandler.removeCallbacks(mMyRunnableHide);
mTextDisplay.setText("");
DisplayX();
}
});
}
the removecallbacks is not stopping the runnable. What am I doing wrong? Am I using the correct method? I just want the runnable to "Not Run" when the user clicks the button.
Thanks for any help.
It appears to me that removeCallbacks(..) only stops pending messages (Runnables). If your runnable has already started, then there's no stopping it (at least not this way).
Alternatively, you can extend the Runnable class and give it some kind of kill switch like this:
public class MyRunnable implements Runnable
{
private boolean killMe = false;
private void run()
{
if(killMe)
return;
/* do your work */
}
private void killRunnable()
{
killMe = true;
}
}
This will only prevent it from starting, but you could occasionally check killMe and bail out. If you are looping the runnable (like some kind of background thread) you can say:
while(!killMe) {
/* do work */
}
Hope this helps
EDIT I just wanted to post an update on this. Since this original post, Google has come up with a great class called AsyncTask that handles all of this stuff for you. Anyone reading this really should look into it because it is the correct way of doing things.
You can read about it here
Handler.removeCallback is synchronous and will work nicely provided:
You call postDelayed always in the main thread.
You call removeCallback always in the main thread
You don't call postDelayed again after having removed callbacks.
So in your case removeCallbacks is called from a button handler, which runs in the main thread. But you didn't show in your code the point from where you call postDelayed. If you call it from a background thread thats where your problem is.
If you are sure you don't call any of these methods from background threads, and the order of the calls is correct, then you might be leaving uncancelled tasks unadvertedly alive due to activity recreation on config changes (screen rotation, etc). Always make sure to call removeCallbacks again in the onDestroy method to prevent this kind of problems.
Here is another way to accomplish what mtmurdock is describing. This class will allow editing of instance variables in any class that your Runnable is defined as an anonymous inner class.
package support;
/**
* Runnable that can be stopped from executing
*/
public abstract class KillableRunnable implements Runnable{
private boolean isKilled=false;
/**
* Instead of Overriding run(), override this method to perform a Runnable operation.
* This will allow editing instance variables in the class that this Runnable is defined
*/
public abstract void doWork();
//The handler that posts this Runnable will call this method.
//By default, check if it has been killed. doWork() will now be the method
//override to implement this Runnable
#Override
final public void run(){
if(!isKilled){
doWork();
}
}
final public void kill(){
isKilled=true;
}
}
I don't think that removeCallbacks(..) only stops pending messages (Runnables) ,I think removeCallbacks(..) not working have other cause,but i don‘t know. because postDelayed(..) and removeCallbacks(..) is in the same thread
the following has worked for me. Place it in onResume.
mService= null;
public void onServiceConnected(ComponentName name, IBinder service) {
Log.i(TAG, "OnServiceConnected");
ContadorFG.LocalBinder binder = (ContadorFG.LocalBinder) service;
mService = binder.getService();
connected = true;
synchronized (lock){
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
public void onResume() {
super.onResume();
loopDelayed();
}
private void loopDelayed(){
final Handler handler = new Handler();
handler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
if (mService != null) {
----
----
----
return;
}else{
//auto call
loopDelayed();
}
}
}, 10);
}

Categories

Resources