Asked  7 Months ago    Answers:  5   Viewed   25 times

We all know that in order to invoke Object.wait(), this call must be placed in synchronized block, otherwise an IllegalMonitorStateException is thrown. But what's the reason for making this restriction? I know that wait() releases the monitor, but why do we need to explicitly acquire the monitor by making particular block synchronized and then release the monitor by calling wait()?

What is the potential damage if it was possible to invoke wait() outside a synchronized block, retaining it's semantics - suspending the caller thread?

 Answers

30

A wait() only makes sense when there is also a notify(), so it's always about communication between threads, and that needs synchronization to work correctly. One could argue that this should be implicit, but that would not really help, for the following reason:

Semantically, you never just wait(). You need some condition to be satsified, and if it is not, you wait until it is. So what you really do is

if(!condition){
    wait();
}

But the condition is being set by a separate thread, so in order to have this work correctly you need synchronization.

A couple more things wrong with it, where just because your thread quit waiting doesn't mean the condition you are looking for is true:

  • You can get spurious wakeups (meaning that a thread can wake up from waiting without ever having received a notification), or

  • The condition can get set, but a third thread makes the condition false again by the time the waiting thread wakes up (and reacquires the monitor).

To deal with these cases what you really need is always some variation of this:

synchronized(lock){
    while(!condition){
        lock.wait();
    }
}

Better yet, don't mess with the synchronization primitives at all and work with the abstractions offered in the java.util.concurrent packages.

Tuesday, June 1, 2021
 
FyodorX
answered 7 Months ago
12

I intend to remove all of the labels together when all of the workers have completed their tasks.

As described here, a CountDownLatch works well in this context. In the example below, each worker invokes latch.countDown() on completion, and a Supervisor worker blocks on latch.await() until all tasks complete. For demonstration purposes, the Supervisor updates the labels. Wholesale removal, shown in comments, is technically possible but generally unappealing. Instead, consider a JList or JTable.

Worker Latch Test

import java.awt.Color;
import java.awt.EventQueue;
import java.awt.GridLayout;
import java.awt.event.ActionEvent;
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Queue;
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import javax.swing.*;

/**
* @see https://stackoverflow.com/a/11372932/230513
* @see https://stackoverflow.com/a/3588523/230513
*/
public class WorkerLatchTest extends JApplet {

    private static final int N = 8;
    private static final Random rand = new Random();
    private Queue<JLabel> labels = new LinkedList<JLabel>();
    private JPanel panel = new JPanel(new GridLayout(0, 1));
    private JButton startButton = new JButton(new StartAction("Do work"));

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        EventQueue.invokeLater(new Runnable() {

            @Override
            public void run() {
                JFrame frame = new JFrame();
                frame.setTitle("Test");
                frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
                frame.add(new WorkerLatchTest().createGUI());
                frame.pack();
                frame.setLocationRelativeTo(null);
                frame.setVisible(true);
            }
        });
    }

    @Override
    public void init() {
        EventQueue.invokeLater(new Runnable() {

            @Override
            public void run() {
                add(new WorkerLatchTest().createGUI());
            }
        });
    }

    private JPanel createGUI() {
        for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
            JLabel label = new JLabel("0", JLabel.CENTER);
            label.setOpaque(true);
            panel.add(label);
            labels.add(label);
        }
        panel.add(startButton);
        return panel;
    }

    private class StartAction extends AbstractAction {

        private StartAction(String name) {
            super(name);
        }

        @Override
        public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
                startButton.setEnabled(false);
                CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(N);
                ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(N);
                for (JLabel label : labels) {
                    label.setBackground(Color.white);
                    executor.execute(new Counter(label, latch));
                }
                new Supervisor(latch).execute();
        }
    }

    private class Supervisor extends SwingWorker<Void, Void> {

        CountDownLatch latch;

        public Supervisor(CountDownLatch latch) {
            this.latch = latch;
        }

        @Override
        protected Void doInBackground() throws Exception {
            latch.await();
            return null;
        }

        @Override
        protected void done() {
            for (JLabel label : labels) {
                label.setText("Fin!");
                label.setBackground(Color.lightGray);
            }
            startButton.setEnabled(true);
            //panel.removeAll(); panel.revalidate(); panel.repaint();
        }
    }

    private static class Counter extends SwingWorker<Void, Integer> {

        private JLabel label;
        CountDownLatch latch;

        public Counter(JLabel label, CountDownLatch latch) {
            this.label = label;
            this.latch = latch;
        }

        @Override
        protected Void doInBackground() throws Exception {
            int latency = rand.nextInt(42) + 10;
            for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
                publish(i);
                Thread.sleep(latency);
            }
            return null;
        }

        @Override
        protected void process(List<Integer> values) {
            label.setText(values.get(values.size() - 1).toString());
        }

        @Override
        protected void done() {
            label.setBackground(Color.green);
            latch.countDown();
        }
    }
}
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
 
Sauleil
answered 7 Months ago
13

4. The synchronized block of code will obtain a lock on the StringBuffer object from step 3.

Well, you're not doing that, are you?

synchronized(this) {

You're obtaining a lock on the instance of MySyncBlockTest on which that run() method is being called. That ... isn't going to do anything. There's no contention for that resource; each Thread has its own instance of MySyncBlockTest.

Tuesday, July 6, 2021
 
kinske
answered 5 Months ago
89

Task states are not intended to be used for user logic. They are introduced to control Task flow. To add user logic into Task you need to use result conception. In your case you may want to use Task<Boolean> and result of your task will be TRUE for correct credentials and FALSE for incorrect:

Task creation:

public Task<Boolean> doLogin() {
    return new Task<Boolean>() {
        @Override
        protected Boolean call() {
            Boolean result = null;
            user.login();
            if (!user.getIsAuthorized()) {
                result = Boolean.FALSE;
            } else {
                result = Boolean.TRUE;
            }
            user.remember();
            return result;
        }
    };
}

Starting that task:

final Task<Boolean> login = doLogin();
login.setOnSucceeded(new EventHandler<WorkerStateEvent>() {
    @Override
    public void handle(WorkerStateEvent t) {
        // This handler will be called if Task succesfully executed login code
        // disregarding result of login operation

        // and here we act according to result of login code
        if (login.getValue()) {
            System.out.println("Successful login");
        } else {
            System.out.println("Invalid login");
        }

    }
});
login.setOnFailed(new EventHandler<WorkerStateEvent>() {
    @Override
    public void handle(WorkerStateEvent t) {
        // This handler will be called if exception occured during your task execution
        // E.g. network or db connection exceptions
        System.out.println("Connection error.");
    }
});
new Thread(login).start();
Thursday, September 16, 2021
 
GilShalit
answered 3 Months ago
69

The locks of a certain object is highly tied to the instance itself. The structure of the synchronized blocks and methods are very strict. If you, as a programmer, would have the possibility to interfere with the system (virtual machine), it could cause serious problems.

  • You could eventually release a lock that was created by a synchronized block
  • You create a lock that another synchronized block will release
  • You create more lock entries than exits
  • You create more lock exits than entries

There are even specific bytecodes defined for the lock and release operations. If you would have a "method" for this lock/unlock operation, it should be compiled to these bytecodes. So, it is really a low-level operation, and very much different from other Java object level implementations.

Synchronisation is a very strong contract. I think that the designers of the JLS did not want to allow the possibility to break this contract.

The Chapter 17 of the JLS describes more about the expected behaviour.

Tuesday, November 23, 2021
 
hakimoun
answered 1 Week ago
Only authorized users can answer the question. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged :  
Share