Download the JDK
Search the Tutorials
Trail: Essential Classes
Lesson: Concurrency
Home Page > Essential Classes > Concurrency
Answers to Questions and Exercises: Concurrency

### Questions

> 1. Question: Can you pass a `Thread` object to `Executor.execute`? Would such an invocation make sense? Why or why not?

>    Answer: `Thread` implements the `Runnable` interface, so you can pass an instance of `Thread` to `Executor.execute`. However it doesn't make sense to use `Thread` objects this way. If the object is directly instantiated from `Thread`, its `run` method doesn't do anything. You can define a subclass of `Thread` with a useful `run` method — but such a class would implement features that the executor would not use.

### Exercises

> 1. Exercise: Compile and run ``BadThreads.java``:

>    >     public class BadThreads {

>    >         static String message;

>    >         private static class CorrectorThread extends Thread {

>    >             public void run() {
>    >                 try {
>    >                     sleep(1000);
>    >                 } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
>    >                 //Key statement 1:
>    >                 message = "Mares do eat oats.";
>    >             }
>    >         }

>    >         public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
>    >             (new CorrectorThread()).start();
>    >             message = "Mares do not eat oats.";
>    >             Thread.sleep(2000);
>    >             //Key statement 2:
>    >             System.out.println(message);
>    >         }
>    >     }

>    The application should print out "Mares do eat oats." Is it guaranteed to always do this? If not, why not? Would it help to change the parameters of the two invocations of `Sleep`? Describe two ways to change the program to enforce such a guarantee.

>    Solution: The program will almost always print out "Mares do eat oats." However, this result is not guaranteed, because there is no happens-before relationship between "Key statement 1" and "Key statment 2". This is true even if "Key statement 1" actually executes before "Key statement 2" — remember, a happens-before relationship is about visibility, not sequence.

>    There are two ways you can guarantee that all changes to `message` will be visible to the main thread:

>    - In the main thread, retain a reference to the `CorrectorThread` instance. Then invoke `join` on that instance before referring to `message`
>    - Encapsulate `message` in an object with synchronized methods. Never reference `message` except through those methods.

>    Both of these techniques establish the necessary happens-before relationship, making changes to `message` visible.

>    A third technique is to simply declare `message` as `volatile`. This guarantees that any write to `message` (as in "Key statement 1") will have a happens-before relationship with any subsequent reads of `message` (as in "Key statement 2"). But it does not guarantee that "Key statement 1" will literally happen before "Key statement 2". They will probably happen in sequence, but because of scheduling uncertainities and the unknown granularity of `sleep`, this is not guaranteed.

>    Changing the arguments of the two `sleep` invocations does not help either, since this does nothing to guarantee a happens-before relationship.

> 2. Exercise: Modify the producer-consumer example in Guarded Blocks to use a standard library class instead of the `Drop` class.

>    Solution: The `java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue` interface defines a `get` method that blocks if the queue is empty, and a `put` methods that blocks if the queue is full. These are effectively the same operations defined by `Drop` — except that `Drop` is not a queue! However, there's another way of looking at Drop: it's a queue with a capacity of zero. Since there's no room in the queue for any elements, every `get` blocks until the corresponding `take` and every `take` blocks until the corresponding `get`. There is an implementation of `BlockingQueue` with precisely this behavior: `java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue`.

>    `BlockingQueue` is almost a drop-in replacement for `Drop`. The main problem in ``Producer`` is that with `BlockingQueue`, the `put` and `get` methods throw `InterruptedException`. This means that the existing `try` must be moved up a level:

>    >     import java.util.Random;
>    >     import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;

>    >     public class Producer implements Runnable {
>    >         private BlockingQueue<String> drop;

>    >         public Producer(BlockingQueue<String> drop) {
>    >             this.drop = drop;
>    >         }

>    >         public void run() {
>    >             String importantInfo[] = {
>    >                 "Mares eat oats",
>    >                 "Does eat oats",
>    >                 "Little lambs eat ivy",
>    >                 "A kid will eat ivy too"
>    >             };
>    >             Random random = new Random();

>    >             try {
>    >                 for (int i = 0; i < importantInfo.length; i++) {
>    >                     drop.put(importantInfo[i]);
>    >                     Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(5000));
>    >                 }
>    >                 drop.put("DONE");
>    >             } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
>    >         }
>    >     }

>    Similar changes are required for ``Consumer``:

>    >     import java.util.Random;
>    >     import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;

>    >     public class Consumer implements Runnable {
>    >         private BlockingQueue<String> drop;

>    >         public Consumer(BlockingQueue<String> drop) {
>    >             this.drop = drop;
>    >         }

>    >         public void run() {
>    >             Random random = new Random();
>    >             try {
>    >                 for (String message = drop.take(); ! message.equals("DONE");
>    >                         message = drop.take()) {
>    >                     System.out.format("MESSAGE RECEIVED: %s%n", message);
>    >                     Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(5000));
>    >                 }
>    >             } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
>    >         }
>    >     }

>    For ``ProducerConsumerExample``, we simply change the declaration for the `drop` object:

>    >     import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
>    >     import java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue;

>    >     public class ProducerConsumerExample {
>    >         public static void main(String[] args) {
>    >             BlockingQueue<String> drop = new SynchronousQueue<String> ();
>    >             (new Thread(new Producer(drop))).start();
>    >             (new Thread(new Consumer(drop))).start();
>    >         }
>    >     }

Previous page: Questions and Exercises: Concurrency