By Local Service is I mean a Service that is only connected to by the host application. It may use the Binder-subclass version of Services or it may use Messenger -- it doesn't matter. Also, I'll consider only services that run on background threads although I think this applies regardless.
I have been trying to figure out the value of local services over a simple background thread. I've seen it written many times that the background thread version somehow ties you to the Activity or Application lifecycle and is right only if your task should only run when the app is in foreground... but I don't see how this is true. Background threads are AFAIK unrelated to the lifecycle of their creator context. They don't onPause or anything like that.
Service describes a "lifecycle API" that permits external (client) control of the Service. So you can, for example, call stopService and implement kill behavior in Service.onStop instead of writing your own API. But the lifecycle is so trivially-simple that this seems like more complexity, not less. For example, stopService and onStop don't need to be two different methods in a simple local implementation.
I'd especially like to hear of any real use cases where a local service was genuinely preferable to a thread.
First of all service changes killing order of your process.
For a task “fire and forget” all is pretty easy, real fun comes with thread communication. The regular Java mechanisms - pipes, shared memory, blocking queues - are available to Android applications but impose problems for the UI thread because of their tendency to block. Hence, the Android platform defines its own helpers.
BTW, "background" service by default starts in the main thread, for true background work you still have to use threads.
my knowledge of services in any operating system, is that they usually run in the background and perform whatever work they have to do.
but the first time I got familiarized with android services, I got confused.
it appears they only run when the application is working, and that for me, makes them no more then sophisticated threads.
do I have this all wrong? how do I make a service that runs when the application doesn't? (so that I can check for updates and create notifications for the user that will then lead him to the application if he chooses to open them).
does push notifications have anything to do with it?
Edit:
thank you guys for your answers so far.
my problem seems to be the fact that the service is only started officialy when the device is booted up. I do call startService when the app starts, but that doesn't seem to help. the service still dies when the app is turned off (unless it was booted)
also I never call stopService
If you are trying to implement a long running task that is performed in a (background) service, you have to start one or more threads within your service. So the service just gives you the opportunity to have an application context without having to have a user interface ;) you can consider it as a kind of container.
This page give you a nice overview about different thread approaches in Android. As you can see a service has not its own thread.
Anyway, in your case it seems that an AlarmManager is probably the better option. Running services for polling information all the time can be quite CPU and battery consuming (see this post for instance). So try to avoid having threads that run all the time.
If you can push information about updates from a server it's just fine. Check out Googles Cloud Messaging in this case.
Michael who commented on my question first was right in his comment about startService()
so it goes like this:
my receiver is only activated on boot, and uses an AlarmManager to
time the service to certain intervals.
what I did was to bind the activities to the service. if the service
was off and I binded it and unbinded it, then by the time the app was
terminated, there was nothing keeping it alive.
by simply making sure that the service was started properly with
startService if it is not already on, I managed to keep the service
alive at all times
also thanks to Trinimon who gave a very nice explanation on what
services are, and the importance of not overloading the CPU with
excessive polling. (which is kind of a trade off situation)
good luck to all :)
When you learn to develop for Android, you learn that if there's any type of process -that takes more that 5 seconds- running inside the ui thread, the system will show the infamous ANR message. That's when they introduce the evil monster... AsyncTask. At first you see this class as your savior, but then you realize it's the biggest problem in development... Handling rotation or ui events becomes so problematic, it's even painful.
What do you guys think about it... are AsyncTasks worth the trouble? Any other method that makes it less of a problem to perform long running tasks regardless of screen rotation?
I guess you'll probably say, hey why don't you just make it a Service... Yeah that's a solution, but then let's go to my real question. Why don't we just use services and stop using AsyncTasks completely... Are they useful at all?
While developing it is always good to choose the suitable component for the execution. You need to clear your requirement and according to it you can choose between a Service or an AsyncTask.
A service is an Android component that lives independently from any other components. Activities may come and go, but services can stick around, if you wish. They serve a number of roles, from managing state that multiple activities rely upon to serving as cron jobs to handling longer app widget updates.
AsyncTask is a class that arranges to do some work off the main application thread. From the implementer and user of the AsyncTask, how it performs that bit of magic is not generally important. In reality, it uses a thread pool and work queue. AsyncTask uses a Handler to help arrange for select bits of work to be done on the main application thread (e.g., notifying the user of progress updates).
For more clarification see the difference between them.
AsyncTasks and Services are not peers. Either might invoke the other, their purposes are different. I have just a few things to add to Lucifer's answer.
A key thing to remember is that if your process is in the background, hosts a Service, and is killed, that Service will be reincarnated at some point. This is not the case for an AsyncTask that may be running in a process when it is killed. This means that work being done in a Service is guaranteed to make forward progress in the future (although its not guaranteed when). If you have work that must be done, better to do it in a Service.
Calls to Service.onStart and Service.onStartCommand happen on the process' main thread. If you block this for a long time, you'll get the same "app not responding" dialog. As a result, an AsyncTask can be a great thing to use inside a Service to do the real work.
I tend to use AsyncTasks initiated from an Activity for things related to the UI. These are often things that aren't required work and whose work can be easily redone in the future. For example, this might be reading a bunch of images off disk or make a calling to a web service to see if the user has any notifications. This work can be done again, and if the UI is destroyed because the process is killed the work probably needs to be done again anyway.
If on the other hand you want to say upload a group of photos to the web as soon as possible, I'd farm this out to a Service which will use one or more AsyncTasks to do it. This is work I want to get done and want to be resumed if it gets interrupted. If you're going to use a Service, consider using an IntentService so that your Service stops when its work is done.
Why do I read in the answer to most questions here a lot about AsyncTask and Loaders but nothing about Services? Are Services just not known very well or are they deprecated or have some bad attributes or something? What are the differences?
(By the way, I know that there are other threads about it, but none really states clear differences that help a developer to easily decide if he is better off using the one or the other for an actual problem.)
In some cases it is possible to accomplish the same task with either an AsyncTask or a Service however usually one is better suited to a task than the other.
AsyncTasks are designed for once-off time-consuming tasks that cannot be run of the UI thread. A common example is fetching/processing data when a button is pressed.
Services are designed to be continually running in the background. In the example above of fetching data when a button is pressed, you could start a service, let it fetch the data, and then stop it, but this is inefficient. It is far faster to use an AsyncTask that will run once, return the data, and be done.
If you need to be continually doing something in the background, though, a Service is your best bet. Examples of this include playing music, continually checking for new data, etc.
Also, as Sherif already said, services do not necessarily run off of the UI thread.
For the most part, Services are for when you want to run code even when your application's Activity isn't open. AsyncTasks are designed to make executing code off of the UI thread incredibly simple.
Services are completely different: Services are not threads!
Your Activity binds to a service and the service contains some functions that when called, blocks the calling thread. Your service might be used to change temperature from Celsius to Degrees. Any activity that binds can get this service.
However AsyncTask is a Thread that does some work in the background and at the same time has the ability to report results back to the calling thread.
Just a thought: A service may have a AsyncTask object!
Service is one of the components of the Android framework, which does not require UI to execute, which mean even when the app is not actively used by the user, you can perform some operation with service. That doesn't mean service will run in a separate thread, but it runs in main thread and operation can be performed in a separate thread when needed.
Examples usages are playing music in background, syncing data with server in backgroud without user interaction etc
AsyncTask on other hand is used for UI blocking tasks to be performed on a separate thread. It is same like creating a new thread and doing the task when all the tasks of creating and maintaining the threads and send back result to main thread are taken care by the AsyncTask
Example usage are fetching data from server, CRUD operations on content resolver etc
Service and asynctasks are almost doing the same thing,almost.using service or a asynctask depends on what is your requirement is.
as a example if you want to load data to a listview from a server after hitting some button or changing screen you better go with a asynctask.it runs parallel with main ui thread (runs in background).for run asynctack activity or your app should on main UI thread.after exit from the app there is no asynctask.
But services are not like that, once you start a service it can run after you exit from the app, unless you are stop the service.like i said it depends on your requirement.if you want to keep checking data receiving or check network state continuously you better go with service.
happy coding.
In few cases, you can achieve same functionality using both. Unlike Async Task, service has it's own life cycle and inherits Context (Service is more robust than an Async Task). Service can run even if you have exited the app. If you want to do something even after app closing and also need the context variable, you will go for Service.
Example: If you want to play a music and you don't want to pause if user leaves the app, you will definitely go for Service.
Comparison of a local, in-process, base class Service✱ to an AsyncTask:
✱ (This answer does not address exported services, or any service that runs in a process different from that of the client, since the expected use cases differ substantially from those of an AsyncTask. Also, in the interest of brevity, the nature of certain specialized Service subclasses (e.g., IntentService, JobService) will be ignored here.)
Process Lifetime
A Service represents, to the OS, "an application's desire to perform a longer-running operation while not interacting with the user" [ref].
While you have a Service running, Android understands that you don't want your process to be killed. This is also true whenever you have an Activity onscreen, and it is especially true when you are running a foreground service. (When all your application components go away, Android thinks, "Oh, now is a good time to kill this app, so I can free up resources".)
Also, depending on the last return value from Service.onCreate(), Android can attempt to "revive" apps/services that were killed due to resource pressure [ref].
AsyncTasks don't do any of that. It doesn't matter how many background threads you have running, or how hard they are working: Android will not keep your app alive just because your app is using the CPU. It has to have some way of knowing that your app still has work to do; that's why Services are registered with the OS, and AsyncTasks aren't.
Multithreading
AsyncTasks are all about creating a background thread on which to do work, and then presenting the result of that work to the UI thread in a threadsafe manner.
Each new AsyncTask execution generally results in more concurrency (more threads), subject to the limitations of the AsyncTasks's thread-pool [ref].
Service methods, on the other hand, are always invoked on the UI thread [ref]. This applies to onCreate(), onStartCommand(), onDestroy(), onServiceConnected(), etc. So, in some sense, Services don't "run" in the background. Once they start up (onCreate()), they just kinda "sit" there -- until it's time to clean up, execute an onStartCommand(), etc.
In other words, adding additional Services does not result in more concurrency. Service methods are not a good place to do large amounts of work, because they run on the UI thread.
Of course, you can extend Service, add your own methods, and call them from any thread you want. But if you do that, the responsibility for thread safety lies with you -- not the framework.
If you want to add a background thread (or some other sort of worker) to your Service, you are free to do so. You could start a background thread/AsyncTask in Service.onCreate(), for example. But not all use cases require this. For example:
You may wish to keep a Service running so you can continue getting location updates in the "background" (meaning, without necessarily having any Activities onscreen).
Or, you may want to keep your app alive just so you can keep an "implicit" BroadcastReceiver registered on a long-term basis (after API 26, you can't always do this via the manifest, so you have to register at runtime instead [ref]).
Neither of these use cases require a great deal of CPU activity; they just require that the app not be killed.
As Workers
Services are not task-oriented. They are not set up to "perform a task" and "deliver a result", like AsyncTasks are. Services do not solve any thread-safety problems (notwithstanding the fact that all methods execute on a single thread). AsyncTasks, on the other hand, handle that complexity for you.
Note that AsyncTask is slated for deprecation. But that doesn't mean your should replace your AsyncTasks with Services! (If you have learned anything from this answer, that much should be clear.)
TL;DR
Services are mostly there to "exist". They are like an off-screen Activity, providing a reason for the app to stay alive, while other components take care of doing the "work". AsyncTasks do "work", but they will not, in and of themselves, keep a process alive.
I was trying to get the purpose of the IntentService, and when should I use it?
I tried to understand from the API, but not enough details on that one.
Is there any analogy between this and running long-task on a working thread?
Any further explanation and samples on why I would use IntentService would be very welcome.
Thanks,
ray.
Is there any analogy between this and
running long-task on a working thread?
IntentService handles the thread for you.
when should I use it?
Some use cases:
For handling alarms triggered by AlarmManager
For handling other events caught by a manifest-registered BroadcastReceiver
For handling events triggered by an app widget (time-based updates, button clicks, etc.)
Android services are the workhorses of the platform. They allow applications to run long running tasks and give functionality to outside applications. Unfortunately, since they run in the background and are not visually obvious to developers, they can be a source of major headaches. If you have seen an ANR (activity not responding) or have wondered why a service was running when it shouldn't be, a poorly implemented service could be the issue.
The dreaded ANR
Let's take a look at two major errors services cause:
ANRs. These disrupt the user's experience and gives the user an option to force close. This can lead to a user uninstalling your app or the background process being in a disrupted state. The reason for this is that services are launched from your calling thread-- usually this is the UI thread.
Always running services. Although Android provides mechanisms for scheduling and stopping services, not all developers follow the guidelines. In fact, a lot of the examples I've seen don't even mention stopping your service. This can lead to slower overall performance, user confusion, and battery drain.
I imagine the Android developers at Google saw that this was becoming an issue and introduced the IntentService class in Android 1.5. The IntentService class addresses the above issues and abstracts all of the management of threads and service stopping from the developer. It's very easy and powerful way of offloading tasks from the application's main thread.
I would use it whenever the use case is a specific task that will take a long time but has a regular ending. For example, the use cases spelled about above and also such regular tasks such as:
-syncing
-downloading resources
-pulling data from various sources and storing them
I would not recommend using it when the service is long running in nature and doesn't have a definite end. I've seen this done and it is a mistake because the way people end up getting around the fact that IntentService stops itself is to either create locks to keep handleIntent from finishing or if they don't want to block the next requests in line, they'll restart themselves by sending startService again to themselves. This is horrible and for these type of scenarios, you should just use a long running regular Android Service and make sure it's bound to (probably AUTO_CREATE) and handle the work off the main thread.