I have a button that when clicked calls sendFile() to send a file to a server. In the function I am creating a thread, then sending the file in the thread. My question is what happens to the thread after the file is sent? Will the old threads continue to run as I create more threads?
void sendFile(File f) {
Thread mythread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// code to send the file
}
}
mythread.start();
}
From here
A thread can die in two ways: either from natural causes, or by being
killed (stopped). A thread dies naturally when its run method exits
normally. For example, the while loop in this method is a finite
loop--it will iterate 100 times and then exit. public void run() {
int i = 0;
while (i < 100) {
i++;
System.out.println("i = " + i);
} } A thread with this run method dies naturally after the loop and the run method complete.
So when run finishes the thread would die i.e stop !!
Related
I have created a thread (threadName = Original) in onCreate() method of activity in android app. Now inside this thread (inside runnable), there is a for loop in which I created some new threads and then executed the threads in executorService like executorService.execute(thread), for each of them. After that, I created a timer in which I am checking that thread (Original) isAlive() and when the Thread.isAlive() is false then I call my recycler View.
Normally a thread does not die if we do not call executorService.shutdown(). But in android, it dies without the executorService being shutdown. Why this behaviour is seen in android studio?
Check with this example, our program will run indefinitely
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread thread1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
}
});
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
executorService.execute(thread1);
}
The problem is that the 'original' thread finishes once it submits new tasks to the executor, unless you block it manually. This example shows how to wait until all tasks are finished or until a specified time-out occurs:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable r = () -> {
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Runnable run = () -> {
try {
Thread.sleep(15000);
System.out.println("Stopping Thread " + Thread.currentThread().getId());
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Main.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
};
service.submit(run);
}
try {
service.shutdown(); // shuts down once all submitted tasks complete
service.awaitTermination(18, TimeUnit.SECONDS); // blocks until all tasks complete after shutdown request or until time-out occurs
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Main.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
};
Thread original = new Thread(r);
original.start();
System.out.println("is Alive? " + original.isAlive());
while (original.isAlive()) {
// blocks until thread is not alive anymore
}
System.out.println("Original Thread Stopped");
}
I'd like to point out that it is very inefficient to use a for/while loop to constantly check whether a thread is still alive or not. Instead you could implement a listener that is invoked once all threads are finished.
Here is the executor service
ExecutorService service = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
service.shutdown() - it means cannot execute anymore runnable, it does not mean that the executor is dead.
service.awaitTermination(20, TimeUnit.SECONDS) - it means that the program will wait for 20 seconds and then it will die without finishing work. And also if the work is done before 20 seconds then everything is fine and it will die.
So in my case, after I used awaitTermination then it worked fine. My activity now waits for executor service to complete all the tasks.
So I have this method called PredictionEngine(int) that I want to run a certain number of time with a certain time-delay between each run. The method goes like this:
private void PredictionEngine(int delay) throws Exception {
final Handler handler = new Handler();
handler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
enableStrictMode();
String val = null;
try {
if (tHighPass == 0 && tLowPass == 0 && tKalman == 1) {
//Magic
} else {
//Magic
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
enableStrictMode();
new DropboxTask(side_output, "Result", val).execute();
}
}, delay);
}
As obvious, I am running a network operation in the main thread as this is a research app and no client is ever going to use it.
I want this whole function to run for say a 100 times with a certain delay, say 2 seconds. The initial thought was to do this:
for(loop 100 times){
PredictionEngine(int)
Thread.sleep(2000); //sorry for StackOverflow programming.
}
However I don't want to block the main thread as I am reading some sensor data there. Any ideas for the same would be very helpful!
Thanks.
The best way to solve this is by using rxJava library, because it allow to create, modify and consume streams of events. You can implement everything in a few lines of code and modify it so operatioin will be performed in background as well.
Observable.interval(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
.take(100)
// switch execution into main thread
.subscribeOn(AndroidSchedulers.mainThread())
.subscribe(t -> {
doSomethingOnMainThread();
});
On the other hand, there is another solution- you can use Handler, which is usually bein used for thread communication. It has method .postDelayed() allowing you to postpone execution of task. Handler can be conveniently used along with HandlerThread. But, rxJava is more convenient and simple way to solve your problem.
While creating your Handler, you can provide a looper as one of the constructors parameters that is based on different thread then the main thread:
HandlerThread thread = new HandlerThread("Thread name", android.os.Process.THREAD_PRIORITY_BACKGROUND);
thread.start();
Looper looper = thread.getLooper();
Handler handler = new MyHandler(looper);
Messages received by MyHandler will be processed on a separated thread, leaving the UI thread clear from interferences.
To loop on the task periodically, use something like:
for (int i=0; i<100; i++){
handler.postDelayed(new Runnable(){
...
...
...
}, i*delay);
}
This way, in case you decide that the periodic tasks need to be canceled, you will always be able to invoke:
handler.removeCallbacksAndMessages(null);
I tried to solve the issue as follows without blocking the main Thread
I created the worker thread for looping and still running the predictionEngine() on main thread
MyThread t = new MyThread(2000, 3000); // delay and sleep
t.startExecution();
Worker thread class looks as follows
class MyThread extends Thread{
private int delay;
long sleep;
MyThread(int delay, long sleep){
this.delay = delay;
this.sleep = sleep;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++){
try {
MainActivity.this.runOnUiThread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
predictEngine(delay);
}
});
Log.i("Mtali","About to pause loop before next predict");
sleep(sleep);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
void startExecution(){
start();
}
}
Hop this helps!
I finally got my app working, i just have one issue which i would like to correct.
I have a button which controls a thread that runs a couple function in the background. The functions in the background eventually stop the thread whenever a certain value is reached. What i am having issues doing is pressing that same button again to just stop the thread manually. Currently I can only start the thread and wait for itself to finish. I am able to do other things in the app, so the thread is running on its own, i just want to kill it manually.
public void onMonitorClick(final View view){
if (isBLEEnabled()) {
if (!isDeviceConnected()) {
// do nothing
} else if (monitorvis == 0) {
showMonitor();
DebugLogger.v(TAG, "show monitor");
//monitorStop = 4;
Kill.runThread(); // I want a function here that would kill the
// thread below, or is there something that
// can be modified in runThread()?
// I did try Thread.Iteruppted() without luck
shutdownExecutor();
} else if (monitorvis == 1) {
hideMonitor();
DebugLogger.v(TAG, "hide monitor");
monitorStop = 0;
runThread(); //The running thread that works great on its own
}
}
else {
showBLEDialog();
}
}
private void runThread() {
new Thread() {
int i;
public void run() {
while (monitorStop != 3) { //This is where the thread stops itself
try {
runOnUiThread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
((ProximityService.ProximityBinder) getService()).getRssi();
rssilevel = ((ProximityService.ProximityBinder) getService()).getRssiValue();
mRSSI.setText(String.valueOf(rssilevel) + "dB");
detectRange(rssilevel);
}
});
Thread.sleep(750);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}.start();
}
On first look, you could simply set monitorStop = 3, which would cause the thread to eventually stop after it's timeout completes.
The problem with this, is that I presume if you push the button again or your code modifies monitorStop at some point in the future, then the thead you wanted dead, might stay alive. ie: monitorStop will need to stay equal to three for at least 750ms to assure the thread will comlete it's loop and die.
The correct way to do this would be to create your thread as a new class with it's own monitorStop parameter. When you create the thread, you would keep a reference to it and modify the thread's monitorStop parameter. This way the thread would finish without interruption. If you wanted to create a new thread, then this would not affect the old thread from finishing appropriately.
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(8);
List<Future<Object>> results = new ArrayList<Future<Object>>();
// submit tasks
for(int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
results.add(exec.submit(new ThreadTask()));
}
...
// stop the pool from accepting new tasks
exec.shutdown();
// wait for results
for(Future<Object> result: results) {
Object obj = result.get();
}
class ThreadTask implements Callable<Object> {
public Object call() {
// execute download
//Inside this method I need to pause the thread for several seconds
...
return result;
}
}
As shown above in the comment I need to pause the thread for several seconds. Hope you can help me with this.
Thanks for your time!
Just call Thread.sleep(timeInMillis) - that will pause the current thread.
So:
Thread.sleep(5000); // Sleep for 5 seconds
Obviously you shouldn't do this from a UI thread, or your whole UI will freeze...
Note that this simple approach won't allow the thread to be woken up other by interrupting it. If you want to be able to wake it up early, you could use Object.wait() on a monitor which is accessible to whichever code needs to wake it up; that code could use Object.notify() to wake the waiting thread up. (Alternatively, use a higher-level abstraction such as Condition or Semaphore.)
you could implement a new thread, which is not the UI thread..
something like this might do it for you..
class ThreadTask implements Callable<Object> {
public Object call() {
Thread createdToWait= new Thread() {
public void run() {
//---some code
sleep(1000);//call this function to pause the execution of this thread
//---code to be executed after the pause
}
};
createdToWait.start();
return result;
}
I have one function which queries a network server with a few "ping pongs" back and forth, and have written a custom handler to handle the message communication between my main UI thread and the communication thread (I was using AsyncTask for this, but as the program got more complex, I have decided to remove the communication code to its own class outside of the main activity).
Triggering a single instance of this thread communication from onCreate works perfectly, no problem.
I want this query to run on a regular timed basis -- in the background -- for the entire time the app is in use, so I've set up another thread called pollTimer, which I'm trying to use to call the OTHER thread at a regularly scheduled basis.
Obviously, it's crashing, or I wouldn't be posting this.
Is there a way to get a thread within a thread? Or put differently, trigger a thread from another thread?
Timer pollTimer = new Timer();
private void startPollTimer(){
pollTimer.scheduleAtFixedRate(new TimerTask(){
public void run(){
Log.d(TAG,"timer dinged");
//if the following is commented out, this "dings" every 6 seconds.
//if its not commented out, it crashes
threadedPoll();
}
}, 3120, 6000);
}
private void threadedPoll() {
testThread(asciiQueries,WorkerThreadRunnable.typeLogin);
}
edit: it would probably help to include the "testThread" function, which works by itself when called from onCreate, but does not make it when called from the Timer.
"WorkerThreadRunnable" is the massive chunk of code in its own class that has replaced the mess of having AsyncTask handle it inside the main activity.
private Handler runStatHandler = null;
Thread workerThread = null;
private void testThread(String[] threadCommands, int commandType){
if(runStatHandler == null){
runStatHandler = new ReportStatusHandler(this);
if(commandType == WorkerThreadRunnable.typeLogin){
workerThread = new Thread(new WorkerThreadRunnable(runStatHandler,threadCommands, WorkerThreadRunnable.typeLogin));
}
workerThread.start();
return;
}
//thread is already there
if(workerThread.getState() != Thread.State.TERMINATED){
Log.d(TAG,"thread is new or alive, but not terminated");
}else{
Log.d(TAG, "thread is likely deaad, starting now");
//there's no way to resurrect a dead thread
workerThread = new Thread(new WorkerThreadRunnable(runStatHandler));
workerThread.start();
}
}
You seem to be well on the way already - the nice thing about handlers, though, is that they aren't limited to the UI thread - so if you have a Handler declared by one thread, you can set it up to take asynchronous instructions from another thread
mWorkerThread = new WorkerThread()
private class WorkerThread extends Thread {
private Handler mHandler;
#Override
public void run() {
mHandler = new Handler(); // we do this here to ensure that
// the handler runs on this thread
}
public void doStuff() {
mHandler.post(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// do stuff asynchronously
}
}
}
}
Hopefully that helps... if I'm totally off base on your problem let me know
Wots wrong with a sleep() loop? Why do you have pagefuls of complex, dodgy code when you could just loop in one thread?