loop until thread is non-sleeping 1

[almoes]

Hi all!

At a point in my code I want to stop the process and introduce a delay. This delay I make it setting a thread to sleep, and making a while loop doing nothing until the thread wakes up and sets a variable. Is this stable enough? Any other suggestions? thanxs.

cheers,
alej

 

[sedj]

I've never had any problems with Thread.sleep() ...

 

[almoes]

But it will be ok to have a while loop doing nothing until the thread wakes up? this is my worry.

cheers,
alej

 

[Diancecht]

If you want to wait until something happens, you can also use the wait() and notify() methods ot the Object class.

Cheers.

Dian

 

[almoes]

but this will block the other code? how?

cheers,
alej

 

[sedj]

You mean like this ?

...

boolean b = false;

...

while (b) {
  try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch (Exception e) {}
}

// carry on

 

[almoes]

In fact I think I complicated it more...I just want a delay before continuing with the code, but to be able to interrupt this delay. So what I did was create a timer class, which I control by a variable status. So while the status is not 2, do nothing:

myTimer.init(delay);
while (myTimer.status!=2){}
... then continue

init(delay) starts the thread and puts it to sleep for delay milliseconds

Am I complicating the whole thing?

cheers,
Alej

 

[sedj]

>>> Am I complicating the whole thing?

I guess that depends on your viewpoint ! If you just want to have a delay in the code, depending on a value (ie boolean) then the method I posted earlier will work fine ...

 

[almoes]

thanxs for the feedback but i discovered that I cant really stop the code and need to execute it in parallel threads (which I was trying to avoid) but have no other way around.

cheers,
Alej

 

[Diancecht]

To be sincere, I still don't understand what are you trying to do. Just stop the program waiting for some event with a max time without multithreading?

Then you can use

initialTime = System.currentTimeMilis();
while (!someFlag && (System.currentTimeMilis()-initialTime)<someTime);

Anyway, I'd suggest the multithreading option.

Cheers.

Dian

 

[almoes]

Thanxs but I think I cant avoid multi-threading.

cheers,
Alej