This week's book giveaway is in the OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring forum. We're giving away four copies of Refactoring for Software Design Smells: Managing Technical Debt and have Girish Suryanarayana, Ganesh Samarthyam & Tushar Sharma on-line! See this thread for details.
I have just started learning about threads so apologies if this is obvious to you. From what I have read, there are two main ways of using threads a) define a class as a subclass of thread, override the run() method and call start() to start a thread (which invokes the overridden run() method) b) define a class as implementing the runnable interface, define run(). From the example I saw, when you use method b), a timer was used but there was no call to start(). The thread seems to commence when you construct an object of your class. So where is the run() method being called from ? [ January 02, 2004: Message edited by: Gillian Bladen-Clark ]
Using method b) something still has to call start(). If you subclass Thread, you can call start() in the constructor of that class to make an auto-starting thread. Anyway, if you see an example where start() is never called, then you probably just need to look a little deeper.
If you want a java.util.Timer to execute a job for you, you have to schedule it. The job should be a java.util.TimerTask. The Timer then starts the job at the appropriate moment. If you add more than one TimerTask, they all run in the same Thread. On the onther hand, the two ways to implement Threads that you learn as a beginner are: 1. extending Thread (call the start method) and 2. implementing Runnable (create a Thread passing the Runnable as a parameter, and call start on that Thread). This last version has nothing to do with a Timer.
I believe I've seen the same thing as you have. In my example, I was missing the run() because I was using an applet. In that scenario, it seems, the start(), stop(), and run() methods of the applet over-ride the same methods of the Runnable interface ( I know stop() is deprecated...)
-nothing important to say, but learnin' plenty-