Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 938967
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T21:42:56+00:00 2026-05-15T21:42:56+00:00

I’d like to have a ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor which also stops the last thread if there

  • 0

I’d like to have a ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor which also stops the last thread if there is no work to do, and creates (and keeps threads alive for some time) if there are new tasks. But once there is no more work to do, it should again discard all threads.

I naivly created it as new ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor(0) but as a consequence, no thread is ever created, nor any scheduled task is ever executed.

Can anybody tell me if I can achieve my goal without writing my own wrapper around the ScheduledThreadpoolExecutor?

Thanks in advance!

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T21:42:56+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 9:42 pm

    Actually you can do it, but its non-obvious:

    • Create a new ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor
    • In the constructor set the core threads to the maximum number of threads you want
    • set the keepAliveTime of the executor
    • and at last, allow the core threads to timeout

      m_Executor = new ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor ( 16,null );
      m_Executor.setKeepAliveTime ( 5, TimeUnit.SECONDS );
      m_Executor.allowCoreThreadTimeOut ( true );
      

      This works only with Java 6 though

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.