Consumer and poducer4/8/2023 ![]() ![]() ![]() Additionally, and returning to the example, following the higher cost of iron ore, competitive market forces may adjust margins related to transportation, wholesale and retail in such a way as to absorb the price increase and show little movement, if any, in final consumer prices. Producers similarly can substitute materials or otherwise reduce use of specific inputs. Consumers can show resistance to price increases by purchasing domestically produced or imported substitutes, or by simply doing without. Price formation in a market economy does not occur on a “cost plus profit margin” model, but along the price that the market bears. In the actual economy, however, not all else is equal. All else equal, a change in price in an important input gets “passed through” the value chain to the consumer. The finished cars pass on to dealerships, and are sold to consumers. For example, iron ore is an input to the steel industry, which in turn fabricates products used by automotive manufacturers. Note The theory is that the prices of consumer items, particularly goods, respond to cost pressures from the inputs to production. There has been a persistent curiosity about the predictability of consumer price inflation by looking at the pass-through effect of prices from earlier stages of production. You can use this typesafe pattern with poison pills: public sealed interface BaseMessage else if (message instanceof BaseMessage.This work would not have been possible without the contributions of dedicated staff from Statistics Canada: Lydia Couture, Ning Huang and Devin MacKay. In the Rosetta Code example above, this 'object' is simply an empty String called 'EOF': final String EOF = new String() what you referred to in your question as 'poison'. ![]() Then the producer sets that attribute in the last packet, and the consumer stops consuming it. The producer and consumer must agree upon an object (or an attribute in the object) that represents end of input. I find 'Rosetta Code' to be fine source of deciding what is good practice, in situations like this: Then to get around this, you will want to do additional synchronization with mutexes over and above the 'BlockingQueue'. The opposite can also happen, and one packet gets left out un-consumed. Now consumer blocks forever waiting for a ghost packet.in meanwhile, producer was setting the flag to 'dont run'.consumer checks the flag, finds it should keep running, then does a 'take'.So the 'peek' -> 'break' idea basically fails.ī: Setting a 'done/run' flag from consumer and reading it in producer also fails, if: What if the producer simply got slowed down? Now, the consumer quits, and the producer keeps producing. ("Comsumer " + this.name + " finished its job terminating.") Ī: There is simply no guarantee that just because peek returns null, the producer has stopped producing. Public ConsumerThread(String name, BlockingQueue void run() Private boolean isFirstTimeConsuming = true public class ConsumerThread implements Runnable Wonder if anyone has a different approach. But this poison makes the code really look bad. In general, I know I can put a 'poison' data such as Object is XYZ and I can check it in the consumer. But in my real world design, this doesn't work (sometimes it takes longer time to the producer to 'put' the data so the exception thrown in the consumer is incorrect. In the code below, I've added if (queue.peek()=null) My question is this: how does the consumer stops if he's in constant while(true). So I have simulated my producer consumer problem and I have the code below. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |