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?
Alternative answer
Use the following code:
Create and start the thread as you do it right now.
When the service is destroyed, "signal" the thread to quit
Here is thread implementation
You might want to read the following:
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:
I like to take the following approach:
On service onDestroy just release the stopEvent:
Better to use global variable stopThread, stop thread once variable changed to true.
why don't you use an AsyncTask?
I think the best way to create and communicate with another thread is to use an AsyncTask. Heres an example of one:
You can now easily use this class, and start the thread by writing:
Along with this you can easily pause or stop the thread from looping:
Example of pausing and playing the thread:
Example of stopping and starting the thread:
The thread
destroy
andstop
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
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 likeor 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.