I have a basic asynchronous task that performs a web request. The thread is not contained in a loop or anything, it performs the request and returns from run(). When I try to execute another request, using that thread, I get an exception thrown because the thread is already running. I've searched around a lot on this site for answers, but all that seems to come up is stopping threads that are in a loop, basically forcing the thread to return.
Should I just put the request code in the thread into a loop that waits on some kind of flag from the main thread to tell it to go ahead and execute again? like:
public void run()
{
while ( threadIsStillRunning )
{
while ( !threadShouldExecute )
{
//Sleep the thread
}
//Execute the request
}
}
EDIT:
Ok, well here's the thread (this is contained in one of my class objects-WebServiceHelper):
private Thread executeRequest = new Thread()
{
public void run()
{
//Meat of the code
isRunning = false;
}
}
I then have another class method in the same class(WebServiceHelper):
private volatile boolean isRunning = false;
public void Execute(WebServiceHandler handler)
{
while ( isRunning )
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
isRunning = true;
r = handler;
executeRequest.start();
}
where r is just an interface object that I use to perform callbacks to the object performing the request.
Then in my main activity (the one that requested the thread execution i have this:
private Runnable getSiteData = new Runnable(){
public void run(){
mWebServiceHelper.SetMethod("GetSiteData");
mWebServiceHelper.Execute(mySiteHelper);
}
};
public void downloadDidFinish(List<Map<String, String>> data)
{
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
TeamList.StoreTeams(data );
mHandler.post(getSiteData);
}
downloadDidFinish gets called by the thread above upon completion, I then perform another request right after as you can see. The crash is happening when I try to call Execute again on the WebServiceHelper and start the thread again.
Asynctask is very useful to manage your threads.
https://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/AsyncTask.html
https://developer.android.com/resources/articles/painless-threading.html
Here is an example: http://labs.makemachine.net/2010/05/android-asynctask-example/
Related
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'm very new to Android programming so pls excuse my ignorance...
I'm trying to do simple Android app:
User presses a button, starts postDelayed job and then waits on conditional var
after timeout the postDelayer job should signal
private final static long TIMEOUT = 10000;
private Handler mHandler;
final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
final Condition condition = lock.newCondition();
#Override
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
...
mHandler = new Handler();
...
}
private void timeOutSignal() {
mHandler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
Log.d(">> ", "---> timeout notify");
lock.lock();
try {
condition.signal(); // releases lock and waits until doSomethingElse is called
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}, TIMEOUT);
}
public void buttonClick(View view) {
timeOutSignal();
Log.i("???", "... WAIT");
lock.lock();
try {
condition.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// todo
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
Log.i("???", "... WAIT DONE !");
}
What happens is that buttonClick() is stuck waiting and I'm not even seeing the "---> timeout notify" message after timeout...
What I'm doing wrong ?
EDIT: Tried to fix messed up example...
You can't do what you're trying to do. Handlers run on Looper threads. Handlers that are created with the default constructor will use Looper thread that it is currently running in. In this case, it is the main Looper thread (or UI thread). So, you're locking on the UI Thread and the Handler unlocks on the UI Thread, but it will never reach that point because you're blocking the UI Thread.
Also, at no point do I see you actually calling the method that posts to the Handler.
I have an app that runs 2 threads in loops. 1st one is updating a graph in 1s interval and the second one is updating another graph at 60s interval. The second task is taking a long time since it is quering some server in the internet 3 times that might not always be available and even if it is it will take up to 5-7s to execute.
What is happening is when I launch the second thread it will pause execution of the first one and that is not what I want, I wish both run concurrently. Here in the Youtube video you can see the results of the app running. http://youtu.be/l7K5zSWzlxI
"thread_updater1s" is running a green graph, large readout, and a timer in the corner so you clearly see it stalls for 11 seconds.
1)First of all why is that happening? how to fix it?
2)I'm aware that I might not launch the threads properly at all. I had hard time understanding how to make something to run in a interval loop in Java and my code worked fine for one graph/tread. Now when I have 2 loops in separate threads I don't know why they are not executing concurrently.
Here is the code:
public class LoopExampleActivity extends Activity {
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
this.requestWindowFeature(Window.FEATURE_NO_TITLE);
setContentView(R.layout.main);
thread_updater1s.start();
thread_updater2.start();
}// end of onCreate
final Runnable r1s = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
do_1s_updates(); // those are very quick http calls to the local API server
} // to get data nessessary for some plot.
// They have 1s timeout as well but rarely timeout
};
final Runnable r2 = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
do_large_updates(); //This makes 7 long call over the Internet to the slow https
//server once every 60s. Has 10s timeout and sometimes takes as much as
//7s to execute
}
};
Thread thread_updater1s = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
handler.post(r1s);
sleep(1000);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
Thread thread_updater2 = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
handler2.post(r2);
sleep(60000);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
}
PS. please be forgiving and informative I only code Java for 15 days so far with absolutely no prior experince or lesson.
You need to make the http requests in the threads (not the posted runnables). Then, when you have the data downloaded, you create a runnable with that data that will update the graph and post that runnable to be executed by the UI thread. Here is an example:
public class LoopExampleActivity extends Activity {
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
this.requestWindowFeature(Window.FEATURE_NO_TITLE);
setContentView(R.layout.main);
thread_updater1s.start();
thread_updater2.start();
}// end of onCreate
Thread thread_updater1s = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
final Object data = getDataFromServer1();
handler.post(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
updateGraph1(data);
}
);
sleep(1000);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
Thread thread_updater2 = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
final Object data = getDataFromServer2();
handler.post(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
updateGraph2(data);
}
);
sleep(60000);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
Obviously, change that final Object data by the appropriate class that represents your data downloaded.
handler.post pushes the runnable onto the main (UI) thread's message queue for execution on the main thread.
So what you're doing is every sleep interval, you're sending a message to the main thread to run the function. Clearly, the main thread can't run 2 things at once, so that's why one runnable is delayed for the next one.
You probably want to do the work of the runnable in the separate threads - why did you start using a handler? What happens if you call do_1s_updates and do_large_updates directly instead of through the handler & runnable?
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();
}
}
});
Is it possible for a background thread to enqueue a message to the main UI thread's handler and block until that message has been serviced?
The context for this is that I would like my remote service to service each published operation off its main UI thread, instead of the threadpool thread from which it received the IPC request.
This should do what you need. It uses notify() and wait() with a known object to make this method synchronous in nature. Anything inside of run() will run on the UI thread and will return control to doSomething() once finished. This will of course put the calling thread to sleep.
public void doSomething(MyObject thing) {
String sync = "";
class DoInBackground implements Runnable {
MyObject thing;
String sync;
public DoInBackground(MyObject thing, String sync) {
this.thing = thing;
this.sync = sync;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (sync) {
methodToDoSomething(thing); //does in background
sync.notify(); // alerts previous thread to wake
}
}
}
DoInBackground down = new DoInBackground(thing, sync);
synchronized (sync) {
try {
Activity activity = getFromSomewhere();
activity.runOnUiThread(down);
sync.wait(); //Blocks until task is completed
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Log.e("PlaylistControl", "Error in up vote", e);
}
}
}