Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Find centralized, trusted content and collaborate around the technologies you use most.

Teams

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Asynchronous implementation with JDK 1.8 :

public static void setTimeout(Runnable runnable, int delay){
    new Thread(() -> {
        try {
            Thread.sleep(delay);
            runnable.run();
        catch (Exception e){
            System.err.println(e);
    }).start();
To call with lambda expression:
setTimeout(() -> System.out.println("test"), 1000);
Or with method reference:
setTimeout(anInstance::aMethod, 1000);
To deal with the current running thread only use a synchronous version:
public static void setTimeoutSync(Runnable runnable, int delay) {
    try {
        Thread.sleep(delay);
        runnable.run();
    catch (Exception e){
        System.err.println(e);
Use this with caution in main thread – it will suspend  everything after the call until timeout expires and runnable executes.
                yeah don't do it this way - it will start too many threads, I think the CompletableFuture technique is better
– Alexander Mills
                Feb 4, 2019 at 23:56
                huh, is there a way to tell CompletableFuture to use a threadpool instead of creating a new thread each time? or does it already do that?
– Alexander Mills
                Feb 6, 2019 at 8:29
                Even Java's built-in Timer class starts "too many threads": "A facility for threads to schedule tasks for future execution in a background thread." I think this way is actually pretty clean. It doesn't handle the repeat-execution case, but you could always have your task just call settimeout again at the end.
– Pavel Komarov
                Oct 23, 2019 at 20:01
                It's not precisely like javascript setTimeout - setTimeout returns id which can be used for cancelation via clearTimeout
– shabunc
                Apr 13 at 22:26
Use Java 9 CompletableFuture, every simple: 
CompletableFuture.delayedExecutor(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS).execute(() -> {
  // Your code here executes after 5 seconds!
                Snippet not working it shows the error: The method delayedExecutor(int, TimeUnit) is undefined for the type CompletableFuture
– Ashish
                Nov 26, 2018 at 9:33
                I think I made a mistake, it's for Java 9, not Java 8. Use Java 9 and everything is fine.
– user1079877
                Nov 27, 2018 at 17:20
The other answers assume you are not using Swing for your user interface (button).
If you are using Swing then do not use Thread.sleep() as it will freeze your Swing application.
Instead you should use a javax.swing.Timer.
See the Java tutorial How to Use Swing Timers and Lesson: Concurrency in Swing for more information and examples.
                even though this is the accepted answer it is woefully outdated, especially since the advent of java 9. See the answer below about the delayedExecutor
– Jewels
                Mar 5, 2019 at 13:10
                Thanks, I also needed clearTimeout() alternative so usage is  ... Timer timer = new Timer(); timer.schedule(...); timer.cancel();
– mikep
                Mar 6, 2021 at 20:49
You can simply use Thread.sleep() for this purpose. But if you are working in a multithreaded environment with a user interface, you would want to perform this in the separate thread to avoid the sleep to block the user interface.
    Thread.sleep(60000);
    // Then do something meaningful...
}catch(InterruptedException e){
    e.printStackTrace();
Do not use Thread.sleep as it will freeze your main thread, and not simulate setTimeout from JS.
You need to create and start a new background thread to run your code without stoping the execution of the main thread.
One example:
    new Thread() {
        @Override
        public void run() {
            try {
                this.sleep(3000);
            } catch (InterruptedException e) {
                e.printStackTrace();
            // your code here
    }.start();
                Can you share how your solution is better than the others? And please also explain what your solution is doing rather than just pasting a piece of code.
– Noel Widmer
                Jun 4, 2017 at 12:19
                the code creatore was not me. its oracle. better than me , their must explain. pleade refer to this link and read doc.docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/…
– babak
                Jun 4, 2017 at 16:33
There is setTimeout() method in underscore-java library.
Code example:
import com.github.underscore.Underscore;
import java.util.function.Supplier;
public class Main {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        final Integer[] counter = new Integer[] {0};
        Supplier<Void> incr =
            () -> {
                counter[0]++;
                return null;
        Underscore.setTimeout(incr, 0);
The function will be started in 100ms with a new thread.
                It is definitely inappropriate to use any sort of "sleep" (on the main or active thread) to do this sort of thing.  (Nor does it call for the use of a thread.)  Some sort of timeout, as suggested here, is definitely called-for.  Also:  in the timeout-handler, be sure that you verify that the condition-of-interest still exists!  (Even if you "delete the timeout" when the condition no longer exists, there is still a miniscule timing-hole left that you cannot completely eliminate.)
– Mike Robinson
                Apr 25, 2016 at 14:52
        
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.