Is it possible to read from a InputStream with a timeout?
Asked Answered
M

9

177

Specifically, the problem is to write a method like this:

int maybeRead(InputStream in, long timeout)

where the return value is the same as in.read() if data is available within 'timeout' milliseconds, and -2 otherwise. Before the method returns, any spawned threads must exit.

To avoid arguments, the subject here java.io.InputStream, as documented by Sun (any Java version). Please note this is not as simple as it looks. Below are some facts which are supported directly by Sun's documentation.

  1. The in.read() method may be non-interruptible.

  2. Wrapping the InputStream in a Reader or InterruptibleChannel doesn't help, because all those classes can do is call methods of the InputStream. If it were possible to use those classes, it would be possible to write a solution that just executes the same logic directly on the InputStream.

  3. It is always acceptable for in.available() to return 0.

  4. The in.close() method may block or do nothing.

  5. There is no general way to kill another thread.

Mohammed answered 30/4, 2009 at 0:52 Comment(0)
P
94

Using inputStream.available()

It is always acceptable for System.in.available() to return 0.

I've found the opposite - it always returns the best value for the number of bytes available. Javadoc for InputStream.available():

Returns an estimate of the number of bytes that can be read (or skipped over) 
from this input stream without blocking by the next invocation of a method for 
this input stream.

An estimate is unavoidable due to timing/staleness. The figure can be a one-off underestimate because new data are constantly arriving. However it always "catches up" on the next call - it should account for all arrived data, bar that arriving just at the moment of the new call. Permanently returning 0 when there are data fails the condition above.

First Caveat: Concrete subclasses of InputStream are responsible for available()

InputStream is an abstract class. It has no data source. It's meaningless for it to have available data. Hence, javadoc for available() also states:

The available method for class InputStream always returns 0.

This method should be overridden by subclasses.

And indeed, the concrete input stream classes do override available(), providing meaningful values, not constant 0s.

Second Caveat: Ensure you use carriage-return when typing input in Windows.

If using System.in, your program only receives input when your command shell hands it over. If you're using file redirection/pipes (e.g. somefile > java myJavaApp or somecommand | java myJavaApp ), then input data are usually handed over immediately. However, if you manually type input, then data handover can be delayed. E.g. With windows cmd.exe shell, the data are buffered within cmd.exe shell. Data are only passed to the executing java program following carriage-return (control-m or <enter>). That's a limitation of the execution environment. Of course, InputStream.available() will return 0 for as long as the shell buffers the data - that's correct behaviour; there are no available data at that point. As soon as the data are available from the shell, the method returns a value > 0. NB: Cygwin uses cmd.exe too.

Simplest solution (no blocking, so no timeout required)

Just use this:

    byte[] inputData = new byte[1024];
    int result = is.read(inputData, 0, is.available());  
    // result will indicate number of bytes read; -1 for EOF with no data read.

OR equivalently,

    BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in, Charset.forName("ISO-8859-1")),1024);
    // ...
         // inside some iteration / processing logic:
         if (br.ready()) {
             int readCount = br.read(inputData, bufferOffset, inputData.length-bufferOffset);
         }

Richer Solution (maximally fills buffer within timeout period)

Declare this:

public static int readInputStreamWithTimeout(InputStream is, byte[] b, int timeoutMillis)
     throws IOException  {
     int bufferOffset = 0;
     long maxTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + timeoutMillis;
     while (System.currentTimeMillis() < maxTimeMillis && bufferOffset < b.length) {
         int readLength = java.lang.Math.min(is.available(),b.length-bufferOffset);
         // can alternatively use bufferedReader, guarded by isReady():
         int readResult = is.read(b, bufferOffset, readLength);
         if (readResult == -1) break;
         bufferOffset += readResult;
     }
     return bufferOffset;
 }

Then use this:

    byte[] inputData = new byte[1024];
    int readCount = readInputStreamWithTimeout(System.in, inputData, 6000);  // 6 second timeout
    // readCount will indicate number of bytes read; -1 for EOF with no data read.
Praiseworthy answered 1/5, 2013 at 6:32 Comment(13)
If is.available() > 1024 this suggestion will fail. There are certainly streams which do return zero. SSLSockets for example until recently. You can't rely on this.Deflocculate
The case 'is.available() > 1024' is specifically dealt with via readLength.Praiseworthy
Comment re SSLSockets incorrect - it returns 0 for available iff there's no data in the buffer. As per my answer. Javadoc: "If there are no bytes buffered on the socket, and the socket has not been closed using close, then available will return 0. "Praiseworthy
@GlenBest My comment re SSLSocket is not incorrect. Until recently [my emphasis] it used to return zero at all times. You're talking about the present. I'm talking about the entire history of JSSE, and I've worked with since before it was first included in Java 1.4 in 2002.Deflocculate
By changing the while loop conditions to "while (is.available() > 0 && System.currentTimeMillis() < maxTimeMillis && bufferOffset < b.length) {" saved me a ton of CPU overhead.Consign
@EJP Is it your assessment that "until recently" the input stream from an SSLSocket violated the contract of available()? Or was the contract for InputStream changed and SSLSocket was updated accordingly?Militarism
@Militarism It is my experience over many years that SSLSocket.getInputStream().available() returned zero; nowhere have I asserted that this 'violated the contract of available()'; nowhere have I asserted that 'the contract for InputStream changed': these are all your assertions; not mine.Deflocculate
@EJP. I said "assessment" not "assertion". But let me rephrase. Glen Best's answer explains why "Permanently returning zero" would violate the contract (JavaDoc) of any implementation of available() unless the inputstream could never receive input. But you stated that "until recently" the input stream returned by SSLSocket is would "return zero at all times". This violates the current contract. Was the contract for available() different back? Or was SSLSocket returning an InputStream that violates the contract? Also, do you happen to know in which version of Java this changed? ThanksMilitarism
available() is a blocking unreliable method as stated in the docsCalondra
While I did like this answer (and use a slightly modified version), a problem with this is that the input only appears in the console (cmd.exe) after pressing the Enter key.Wellknown
This is actually not a good answer. 1) as already stated, available() may return 0, depending on JVM, version, OS, implementations. 2) If you are trying to access erroneous files, any read() call may never return (or at least not within a decent timeout, some are 10 minutes). So using this solution is a bad idea. Ian Jones' answer is much better and better readable if written properly.Bierce
I realize hat for practical purposes it may not happen, but the timeout check should not use less-than like that. It doesn't handle the case where adding the timeout offset wraps the long. Better to do the subtraction, (current - start) and check the difference hasn't exceeded the timeout.Frontispiece
This suggestion is not "blocking". It is busy-wait / spinlock.Decease
B
75

Assuming your stream is not backed by a socket (so you can't use Socket.setSoTimeout()), I think the standard way of solving this type of problem is to use a Future.

Suppose I have the following executor and streams:

    ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
    final PipedOutputStream outputStream = new PipedOutputStream();
    final PipedInputStream inputStream = new PipedInputStream(outputStream);

I have writer that writes some data then waits for 5 seconds before writing the last piece of data and closing the stream:

    Runnable writeTask = new Runnable() {
        @Override
        public void run() {
            try {
                outputStream.write(1);
                outputStream.write(2);
                Thread.sleep(5000);
                outputStream.write(3);
                outputStream.close();
            } catch (Exception e) {
                e.printStackTrace();
            }
        }
    };
    executor.submit(writeTask);

The normal way of reading this is as follows. The read will block indefinitely for data and so this completes in 5s:

    long start = currentTimeMillis();
    int readByte = 1;
    // Read data without timeout
    while (readByte >= 0) {
        readByte = inputStream.read();
        if (readByte >= 0)
            System.out.println("Read: " + readByte);
    }
    System.out.println("Complete in " + (currentTimeMillis() - start) + "ms");

which outputs:

Read: 1
Read: 2
Read: 3
Complete in 5001ms

If there was a more fundamental problem, like the writer not responding, the reader would block for ever. If I wrap the read in a future, I can then control the timeout as follows:

    int readByte = 1;
    // Read data with timeout
    Callable<Integer> readTask = new Callable<Integer>() {
        @Override
        public Integer call() throws Exception {
            return inputStream.read();
        }
    };
    while (readByte >= 0) {
        Future<Integer> future = executor.submit(readTask);
        readByte = future.get(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
        if (readByte >= 0)
            System.out.println("Read: " + readByte);
    }

which outputs:

Read: 1
Read: 2
Exception in thread "main" java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException
    at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask$Sync.innerGet(FutureTask.java:228)
    at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.get(FutureTask.java:91)
    at test.InputStreamWithTimeoutTest.main(InputStreamWithTimeoutTest.java:74)

I can catch the TimeoutException and do whatever cleanup I want.

Bukavu answered 23/3, 2012 at 0:39 Comment(9)
But what about the blocking thread ?! Will it stay in the memory till the application terminates ? If I'm correct, this may produce endless threads the application is heavy loaded and even more, block further threads from using your pool which has it's threads occupied and blocked. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.Fritzie
Muhammad Gelbana, you are right: the blocking read() thread stays running and that is not OK. I have found a way to prevent this though: when the timeout hits, close from the calling thread the input stream (in my case I close the android bluetooth socket from which the input stream comes). When you do that, the read() call will return immediately.. Well in my case I use the int read(byte[]) overload, and that one returns immediately. Maybe the int read() overload would throw an IOException since I don't know what it would return... To my mind that is the proper solution.Counterstatement
-1 as the threads reading stay blocked until the application terminates.Fifty
@ortang That's kind of what I meant by "catch the TimeoutException and do whatever cleanup..." For example I might want to kill the reading thread: ... catch (TimeoutException e) { executor.shutdownNow(); }Bukavu
executer.shutdownNow will not kill the thread. It will try to interrupt it, with no effect. There is no cleanup possible and this is a serious issue.Buttaro
If you want to kill the thread, the best thing to do is to close the input stream after catching the TimeoutException.Kelsey
Should use buffers for I/O - java hands this task to the O/S for high performance. Java threads managing byte-by-byte are inefficient. If you apply buffering, your method doesn't handle this scenario: i) buffer empty ii) 2 second timeout iii) 50% of the buffer full within the 2 sec iv) want to read & return the 50% & not wait for 100% buffer fill. i.e. We'd always have a loop around calls to maybeRead(InputStream in, long timeout).Praiseworthy
You can make field with buffer and fill it. If Timeout occur you can read any info from buffer if it present here. See code of readLine() and make similar code but inside call() of Future.Lahnda
This suggestion is also not "blocking". It is busy-wait / spinlock.Decease
L
27

If your InputStream is backed by a Socket, you can set a Socket timeout (in milliseconds) using setSoTimeout. If the read() call doesn't unblock within the timeout specified, it will throw a SocketTimeoutException.

Just make sure that you call setSoTimeout on the Socket before making the read() call.

Lachish answered 6/9, 2011 at 5:36 Comment(0)
D
18

I would question the problem statement rather than just accept it blindly. You only need timeouts from the console or over the network. If the latter you have Socket.setSoTimeout() and HttpURLConnection.setReadTimeout() which both do exactly what is required, as long as you set them up correctly when you construct/acquire them. Leaving it to an arbitrary point later in the application when all you have is the InputStream is poor design leading to a very awkward implementation.

Deflocculate answered 19/10, 2011 at 23:17 Comment(12)
There are other situations where a read could potentially block for a significant time; e.g. when reading from a tape drive, from a remotely mounted network drive or from an HFS with a tape robot at the back end. (But the main thrust of your answer is right.)Woolgathering
@StephenC +1 for your comment and examples. To add more your example, a simple case could be where socket connections was made correctly but read attempt was blocked as the data was to be fetched from DB but it somehow didn't happen (lets' say DB was not responding to and query went in Locked state). In this scenario you need to have a way to explicitly timeout the read operation on socket.Hallowmas
The whole point of the InputStream abstraction is to not think about the underlying implementation. Its fair to argue about the pros and cons of the posted answers. But, to question the problem statement, is not going to help the disussionKigali
@Kigali The whole point of the InputStream is that it doesn't have a timeout method, and neither do most of the underlying implementations. Sockets are a prominent exception and the only one I can think of off-hand. Ignoring facts is not going to help the discussion.Deflocculate
InputStream works on a stream and it blocks, yet it does not provide a timeout mechanism. So the InputStream abstraction is not an aptly designed abstraction. Hence asking for a way to timeout on a stream isn't asking for much. So the question is asking for a solution to a very practical problem. Most of the underlying implementations will block. Thats the very essence of a stream. Sockets, Files, Pipes will block if the other side of the stream isn't ready with new data.Kigali
@Kigali So you agree with me in questioning the problem statement.Deflocculate
@EJP. I dont know how you got that. I didn't agree with you. The problem statement "how to timeout on a InputStream" is valid. Since the framework doesn't provide a way to timeout, it is appropriate to ask such a question.Kigali
This is a terrible answer. There's no need to 'question the problem statement'. As an example: The Android BluetoothSocket has no way to set a timeout and only presents an InputStream over its API. It'll happily block forever on a read(). But according to this answer every App is "poorly designed". (I'd happily agree that the Android BT framework is poorly designed, however)Theresa
@Theresa That is a terrible comment. You have completely misread the answer. Any application that leaves setting the read timeout to an arbitrary point in application where all it has is an input stream is poorly designed. As there are no such applications except for this one, because they can't be written that way, that means exactly one application. The timeout should indeed be set on the socket, not the input stream, and that is what it says in my answer, and what is wrong with the question, and the problem statement.Deflocculate
@EJP what if the setSoTimeout is insufficient, which seems to be the case in this question: #50722094Marlowe
@Marlowe The question doesn't really mean anything as stated. If setSoTimeout() isn't sufficient, what would be? And NB your assertion in that question that it doesn't work for client sockets is not correct.Deflocculate
That you need only timeouts when reading from the console or sockets is not true. There are situations where you need timeouts when reading from pipes or followed files.Zebadiah
M
6

I have not used the classes from the Java NIO package, but it seems they might be of some help here. Specifically, java.nio.channels.Channels and java.nio.channels.InterruptibleChannel.

Maclean answered 30/4, 2009 at 1:44 Comment(2)
+1: I don't believe that there is a reliable way to do what the OP is asking for with InputStream alone. However, nio was created for this purpose, among others.Parthinia
OP has already basically ruled this out. InputStreams are inherently blocking and may be non-interruptible.Deflocculate
M
5

Here is a way to get a NIO FileChannel from System.in and check for availability of data using a timeout, which is a special case of the problem described in the question. Run it at the console, don't type any input, and wait for the results. It was tested successfully under Java 6 on Windows and Linux.

import java.io.FileInputStream;
import java.io.FilterInputStream;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.lang.reflect.Field;
import java.nio.ByteBuffer;
import java.nio.channels.ClosedByInterruptException;

public class Main {

    static final ByteBuffer buf = ByteBuffer.allocate(4096);

    public static void main(String[] args) {

        long timeout = 1000 * 5;

        try {
            InputStream in = extract(System.in);
            if (! (in instanceof FileInputStream))
                throw new RuntimeException(
                        "Could not extract a FileInputStream from STDIN.");

            try {
                int ret = maybeAvailable((FileInputStream)in, timeout);
                System.out.println(
                        Integer.toString(ret) + " bytes were read.");

            } finally {
                in.close();
            }

        } catch (Exception e) {
            throw new RuntimeException(e);
        }

    }

    /* unravels all layers of FilterInputStream wrappers to get to the
     * core InputStream
     */
    public static InputStream extract(InputStream in)
            throws NoSuchFieldException, IllegalAccessException {

        Field f = FilterInputStream.class.getDeclaredField("in");
        f.setAccessible(true);

        while( in instanceof FilterInputStream )
            in = (InputStream)f.get((FilterInputStream)in);

        return in;
    }

    /* Returns the number of bytes which could be read from the stream,
     * timing out after the specified number of milliseconds.
     * Returns 0 on timeout (because no bytes could be read)
     * and -1 for end of stream.
     */
    public static int maybeAvailable(final FileInputStream in, long timeout)
            throws IOException, InterruptedException {

        final int[] dataReady = {0};
        final IOException[] maybeException = {null};
        final Thread reader = new Thread() {
            public void run() {                
                try {
                    dataReady[0] = in.getChannel().read(buf);
                } catch (ClosedByInterruptException e) {
                    System.err.println("Reader interrupted.");
                } catch (IOException e) {
                    maybeException[0] = e;
                }
            }
        };

        Thread interruptor = new Thread() {
            public void run() {
                reader.interrupt();
            }
        };

        reader.start();
        for(;;) {

            reader.join(timeout);
            if (!reader.isAlive())
                break;

            interruptor.start();
            interruptor.join(1000);
            reader.join(1000);
            if (!reader.isAlive())
                break;

            System.err.println("We're hung");
            System.exit(1);
        }

        if ( maybeException[0] != null )
            throw maybeException[0];

        return dataReady[0];
    }
}

Interestingly, when running the program inside NetBeans 6.5 rather than at the console, the timeout doesn't work at all, and the call to System.exit() is actually necessary to kill the zombie threads. What happens is that the interruptor thread blocks (!) on the call to reader.interrupt(). Another test program (not shown here) additionally tries to close the channel, but that doesn't work either.

Mohammed answered 30/4, 2009 at 20:9 Comment(2)
doesn't work on mac os, neither with JDK 1.6 nor with JDK 1.7. The interrupt is only recognized after pressing return during the read.Breakable
You could do exactly the same with the InputStream. No need for the Channel here at all.Deflocculate
D
4

As jt said, NIO is the best (and correct) solution. If you really are stuck with an InputStream though, you could either

  1. Spawn a thread who's exclusive job is to read from the InputStream and put the result into a buffer which can be read from your original thread without blocking. This should work well if you only ever have one instance of the stream. Otherwise you may be able to kill the thread using the deprecated methods in the Thread class, though this may cause resource leaks.

  2. Rely on isAvailable to indicate data that can be read without blocking. However in some cases (such as with Sockets) it can take a potentially blocking read for isAvailable to report something other than 0.

Dorinda answered 30/4, 2009 at 9:13 Comment(10)
Socket.setSoTimeout() is an equally correct and much simpler solution. Or HttpURLConnection.setReadTimeout().Deflocculate
@EJP - these are only "equally correct" under certain circumstances; e.g. if the input stream is a socket stream / HTTP connection stream.Woolgathering
@Stephen C NIO is only non-blocking and selectable under the same circumstances. There is no non-blocking file I/O for example.Deflocculate
@EJP but there's non-blocking pipe IO (System.in), non-blocking I/O for files (on local disk) is nonsenseDramaturge
@Dramaturge System.in is neither non-blocking nor a pipe. I agree with your last sentence, which is why I said it.Deflocculate
@EJP On most (all?) Unices System.in is actually a pipe (if you didn't tell shell to replace it with file) and as a pipe it can be non-blocking.Dramaturge
@Dramaturge System.in is a Java InputStream, which is neither non-blocking nor a pipe. If fd 0 happens to be a pipe it can be obtained via System.inheritedChannel() but that has nothing to do with System.in.Deflocculate
@EJP Arguing what InputStream isn't is plain BS since it's abstract superclass. InputStream actually MAY be a pipe (hence non-blocking) and 99% of time System.in is a pipe. I can make JNI code which gets fd from System.in and do non-blocking IO without problem. But I can't do it through Java API (inheritedChanel() doesn't return SelectableChannel). Blame NIO makers. And by the way, there is no such thing as C NIO ;).Dramaturge
@Dramaturge You're just wasting time. (1) An InputStream cannot be non-blocking, in any circumstances, regardless of what concrete class is extending it. (2) The standard input is mostly a terminal, sometimes a file, sometimes a pipe. 99% for the latter is wildly incorrect. (3) C NIO is a red herring introduced by you, as is (4) the claim that System.in is non-blocking pipe I/O, which remains false.Deflocculate
@Dramaturge More timewasting. (1) and (2): socket channels and terminals can indeed be put into non-blocking mode , and (1) can be done in Java: as I never said otherwise, your point eludes me. (3) 'Stephen C NIO' contains part of Stephen C's name, the poster I was responding to. The point of your (4) also escapes me as it doesn't contradict anything I have said. As for the rest, you still need to stop confusing the inherited Unix fd=0, an FD, with System.in, an InputStream, which cannot be put into non-blocking mode. Period. Line 264 of the code you cite uses an FD not an InputStream.Deflocculate
D
1

EDIT: Please see @Vlad 's important comment below.

Original answer

There is no way to properly block an InputStream, unless it's created by a Socket.

1. Never busy-wait

"Busy-waiting" refers to using CPU-heavy while loops to poll an IO resource. Never busy-wait. The proper way is to mark the current thread as "blocked" and allow the OS to elect other threads to run. When the IO resource becomes available OR the timeout expires, the OS is in charge of marking your thread as "pending" and electing it again. Java's builtin read() implementations do just that.

Consequences of busy-waiting:

  • If you have one busy-waiter, the CPU will be running when it's supposed to be idling.
  • If you have multiple busy-waiters, they will starve one another and introduce latencies in the application up to the OS quantum/tick time (usually 10ms-100ms). CPU effective utilization rate also drops, and can approach 0% depending on the situation.
  • If your busy-waiters have thread priorities higher than other real-time threads do, they even starve external applications and introduce latencies.

InputStream.read() is an IO call. It should not occupy any CPU(s) while waiting for a byte / a timeout. From what I can tell, the read() that Java provides support proper blocking, but without any timeout capability. Most other answers to this StackOverflow question provide timeout, but use busy-waiting.

2. Java violates OOP by allowing Socket.setSoTimeout

Edit: This claim is wrong as pointed out by @Vlad's comment.

Conclusion: please consider if select solves your problem.

Decease answered 2/8, 2023 at 10:38 Comment(2)
1. Selector.select(timeout) implements non-busy wait. 2. SocketTimeoutException extends InterruptedIOException extends IOExceptionUnsavory
@Unsavory Thank you for the extremely helpful comment! I'm editing the answer.Decease
I
0

Inspired in this answer I came up with a bit more object-oriented solution.

This is only valid if you're intending to read characters

You can override BufferedReader and implement something like this:

public class SafeBufferedReader extends BufferedReader{

    private long millisTimeout;

    ( . . . )

    @Override
    public int read(char[] cbuf, int off, int len) throws IOException {
        try {
            waitReady();
        } catch(IllegalThreadStateException e) {
            return 0;
        }
        return super.read(cbuf, off, len);
    }

    protected void waitReady() throws IllegalThreadStateException, IOException {
        if(ready()) return;
        long timeout = System.currentTimeMillis() + millisTimeout;
        while(System.currentTimeMillis() < timeout) {
            if(ready()) return;
            try {
                Thread.sleep(100);
            } catch (InterruptedException e) {
                break; // Should restore flag
            }
        }
        if(ready()) return; // Just in case.
        throw new IllegalThreadStateException("Read timed out");
    }
}

Here's an almost complete example.

I'm returning 0 on some methods, you should change it to -2 to meet your needs, but I think that 0 is more suitable with BufferedReader contract. Nothing wrong happened, it just read 0 chars. readLine method is a horrible performance killer. You should create a entirely new BufferedReader if you actually want to use readLine. Right now, it is not thread safe. If someone invokes an operation while readLines is waiting for a line, it will produce unexpected results

I don't like returning -2 where I am. I'd throw an exception because some people may just be checking if int < 0 to consider EOS. Anyway, those methods claim that "can't block", you should check if that statement is actually true and just don't override'em.

import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.Reader;
import java.nio.CharBuffer;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.stream.Stream;

/**
 * 
 * readLine
 * 
 * @author Dario
 *
 */
public class SafeBufferedReader extends BufferedReader{

    private long millisTimeout;

    private long millisInterval = 100;

    private int lookAheadLine;

    public SafeBufferedReader(Reader in, int sz, long millisTimeout) {
        super(in, sz);
        this.millisTimeout = millisTimeout;
    }

    public SafeBufferedReader(Reader in, long millisTimeout) {
        super(in);
        this.millisTimeout = millisTimeout;
    }



    /**
     * This is probably going to kill readLine performance. You should study BufferedReader and completly override the method.
     * 
     * It should mark the position, then perform its normal operation in a nonblocking way, and if it reaches the timeout then reset position and throw IllegalThreadStateException
     * 
     */
    @Override
    public String readLine() throws IOException {
        try {
            waitReadyLine();
        } catch(IllegalThreadStateException e) {
            //return null; //Null usually means EOS here, so we can't.
            throw e;
        }
        return super.readLine();
    }

    @Override
    public int read() throws IOException {
        try {
            waitReady();
        } catch(IllegalThreadStateException e) {
            return -2; // I'd throw a runtime here, as some people may just be checking if int < 0 to consider EOS
        }
        return super.read();
    }

    @Override
    public int read(char[] cbuf) throws IOException {
        try {
            waitReady();
        } catch(IllegalThreadStateException e) {
            return -2;  // I'd throw a runtime here, as some people may just be checking if int < 0 to consider EOS
        }
        return super.read(cbuf);
    }

    @Override
    public int read(char[] cbuf, int off, int len) throws IOException {
        try {
            waitReady();
        } catch(IllegalThreadStateException e) {
            return 0;
        }
        return super.read(cbuf, off, len);
    }

    @Override
    public int read(CharBuffer target) throws IOException {
        try {
            waitReady();
        } catch(IllegalThreadStateException e) {
            return 0;
        }
        return super.read(target);
    }

    @Override
    public void mark(int readAheadLimit) throws IOException {
        super.mark(readAheadLimit);
    }

    @Override
    public Stream<String> lines() {
        return super.lines();
    }

    @Override
    public void reset() throws IOException {
        super.reset();
    }

    @Override
    public long skip(long n) throws IOException {
        return super.skip(n);
    }

    public long getMillisTimeout() {
        return millisTimeout;
    }

    public void setMillisTimeout(long millisTimeout) {
        this.millisTimeout = millisTimeout;
    }

    public void setTimeout(long timeout, TimeUnit unit) {
        this.millisTimeout = TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.convert(timeout, unit);
    }

    public long getMillisInterval() {
        return millisInterval;
    }

    public void setMillisInterval(long millisInterval) {
        this.millisInterval = millisInterval;
    }

    public void setInterval(long time, TimeUnit unit) {
        this.millisInterval = TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.convert(time, unit);
    }

    /**
     * This is actually forcing us to read the buffer twice in order to determine a line is actually ready.
     * 
     * @throws IllegalThreadStateException
     * @throws IOException
     */
    protected void waitReadyLine() throws IllegalThreadStateException, IOException {
        long timeout = System.currentTimeMillis() + millisTimeout;
        waitReady();

        super.mark(lookAheadLine);
        try {
            while(System.currentTimeMillis() < timeout) {
                while(ready()) {
                    int charInt = super.read();
                    if(charInt==-1) return; // EOS reached
                    char character = (char) charInt;
                    if(character == '\n' || character == '\r' ) return;
                }
                try {
                    Thread.sleep(millisInterval);
                } catch (InterruptedException e) {
                    Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); // Restore flag
                    break;
                }
            }
        } finally {
            super.reset();
        }
        throw new IllegalThreadStateException("readLine timed out");

    }

    protected void waitReady() throws IllegalThreadStateException, IOException {
        if(ready()) return;
        long timeout = System.currentTimeMillis() + millisTimeout;
        while(System.currentTimeMillis() < timeout) {
            if(ready()) return;
            try {
                Thread.sleep(millisInterval);
            } catch (InterruptedException e) {
                Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); // Restore flag
                break;
            }
        }
        if(ready()) return; // Just in case.
        throw new IllegalThreadStateException("read timed out");
    }

}
Indigenous answered 23/1, 2020 at 0:32 Comment(0)

© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.