I need to save a EditText data into a file when to user exits the activity. I know I have plenty of options depending on how important saving that data for me. But for this particular case I'm ok that I can afford losing it so best-afford is fine.
We could maybe create a background service to decouple it entirely from the host activity. However,I was also thinking of creating a coroutine scope that might outlive the activity (i.e.: a singleton NonUIScope) and call the block like;
override fun onSaveInstanceState(bundle: ...) {
...
mInput = et.text.toString()
}
override fun onDestroy() {
NonUIScope.launch {
Downloader.saveData(mInput)
}
}
There might be slightly different implementations to achieve the same goal of course, for instance, using onSavedInstanceSate() instead of writing it into a file but my point is: if I use the ApplicationScope that I've created, could I potentially leak the activity (even there's no UI reference in the coroutine)?
As long as NonUIScope is not related in any way to your activity and also Downloader class doesn't hold an instance of your activity, it will not leak your activity.
E.g. if you use GlobalScope, the life time of the launched coroutine is limited only by the lifetime of the whole application, not by your activity.
Related
I've seen tutorials where writing to Room performed in a coroutine launched using viewModelScope, so it's cancelled when ViewModel is destroyed. But I want data to be written in any case. So I want to launch this coroutine in a scope that doesn't depend on Activity's lifecycle.
class MyApplication : Application() {
val applicationScope = CoroutineScope(SupervisorJob())
}
Is it true that if I launch a long-running coroutine in ViewModel using this scope ViewModel won't be allowed to be garbage collected until the coroutine is finished even if Activity is destroyed?
True. Launching a long-running coroutine from everywhere will retain objects that it references until it's finished or cancelled.
That's why it's advisable to use viewModelScope when inside ViewModel and lifecycleScope in activities and fragments. Because they know how to cancel those jobs.
https://developer.android.com/topic/libraries/architecture/coroutines
But if you don't reference your activity or context (which is actually the activity itself) they won't leak.
CoroutineScope(SupervisorJob())
.launch {
// activity.getString(R.string.something) // Memory leak!
applicationContext.getString(R.string.something) // Memory leak on applicationContext but not on activity. That's fine.
}
. . .
}
Or at least that's how I'd expect it to work. But there seems to be an unexpected behavior when you do withContext(NonCancellable) inside there. See https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.coroutines/issues/1061.
In short, write it so there's no references to Activity and other objects that reference Activity, as is good practice. Otherwise expect things to leak. I'd say the same if you reference any viewmodel objects inside a coroutine.
I have an activity that uses the ViewModel architecture component:
class RandomIdViewModel : ViewModel() {
var currentId : MutableLiveData<String?> = MutableLiveData()
init {
currentId.value = UUID.randomUUID().toString()
}
}
And then in my Activity I have this in the onCreate() method:
viewModel = ViewModelProviders.of(this).get(RandomIdViewModel::class.java)
viewModel.currentId.observe(this, idObserver)
Every time I rotate my phone the Id changes. So I am fairly confused as to why init is being called when I set the viewModel object.
EDIT
I have been looking at the saving state UI guidelines and it definitely appears that the ViewModel should maintain it's data throughout simple configuration changes:
ViewModel is ideal for storing and managing UI-related data while the user is actively using the application. It allows quick access to UI data and helps you avoid refetching data from network or disk across rotation, window resizing, and other commonly occurring configuration changes. ...
ViewModel is ideal for storing and managing UI-related data while the user is actively using the application. It allows quick access to UI data and helps you avoid refetching data from network or disk across rotation, window resizing, and other commonly occurring configuration changes
It appears that having a global variable in the activity that is stores a reference to the ViewModel as a once off causes the issue. All the examples seem to use the VM in a local variable, which doesn't work for me (I don't want my observers to be declared inline as it starts making the code quite messy1). The local variable seems to get a new instance every time a config change occurs. However if I create a method:
private fun viewModel() = ViewModelProviders.of(this).get(RandomIdViewModel::class.java)
and I call this whenever I need the VM. I think this is a bug that will most likely be resolved in the future.
1As a side note I also need to point out that I also had to remove my observers when the activity was not using them. This was another reason why I couldn't just inline the definition of the observers as they happen in different lifecycle events:
override fun onResume() {
super.onResume()
viewModel().currentId.observe(this, idObserver)
}
override fun onPause() {
viewModel().currentId.removeObserver(idObserver)
super.onPause()
}
A few days ago I've discovered that singleton can become anti-pattern in Android. My singleton (class with private constructor and instance stored in static field) was deleted (instance was deleted despite the fact other activities were still using this singleton (via getInstance() method) so another instance had to be created ) because Activity from which it was first invoked was deleted (after invoking finish for only this one activity).
I've read already how this problem can be resolved however I've also just read "Effective Java". There is said that "Single-element enum type is the bast way to implement a singleton".
So now I'm wondering what would be the lifecycle of singleton created this way in Android application? Would it be the same like in case of "standard singleton implementation" so after destroying activity from which it was invoked the first time it will be destroyed (even if it used also in other activities)?
I'm not asking about proper android singleton implemenation or the singleton pattern itself (is it pattern or anti-pattern etc) but I'd like to know what be the lifecycle of such enum singleton object and when it will be destroyed.
In all cases, the classes you use are tied to the ClassLoader that loaded them. This is true in Java in general, not just Android. Android will isolate activities by using new ClassLoaders each time -- at the least, it doesn't promise it won't, and it does as far as I can tell.
Any singleton, or other class-level state, is tied to the Class which is tied to the ClassLoader. This is why your state "disappears"; it's actually that your calling code is seeing a new Class in a new ClassLoader.
So, your enum-based trick, or anything else along these lines, would have exactly the same behavior. You just can't "persist" activity information this way. You can and should write to a SQLite DB. You could probably stash it in the SharedPreferences too.
The application object is a good location to store information which needs to be accessible to various activity or service instances. You can retrieve it like this (where this is an Activity or Service):
private MyApplication app;
in onCreate(...){
...
this.app = (MyApplication) this.getApplication();
...
}
Remember to set the name also in the manifest:
Set the attribute "name" of the "application" tag:
The value is the path to the class relative to the package of your app.
The application object is created when the app is started, you can initialize like in an activity or service in it's onCreate() method.
One thing to remember: The application object can survive closing your "last" activity. In this case you may get the same application object with the state from the previous interaction with your app. If this is a problem you must somehow detect the initial start of your app (e.g. using a special launcher activity without UI, which initializes the application object and then starts a new intent.
BTW, the same may happen with singletons if they have not yet been lost to garbage collection.
My secure singleton implementation is like that:
I create a singleton class which has an attribute of boolean 'didReceiveMemoryWarning';
public class SingleTon(){
public boolean didReceiveMemoryWarning = true;
...
...
}
In application first screen(It is exactly first launch screen)(I have a splash screen that is visible 3 sec)
SingleTon.getInstance().didReceiveMemoryWarning = false;
And in every Activity's onCreate() method, check this boolean data,
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
if(SingleTon.getInstance().didReceiveMemoryWarning){
{ Load your data from local to your SingleTon class,
because your app was released by OS};
}
}
it is my implementation.
This is a pretty simple question, but I have been unable to find anyway to accomplish what I am trying to do...
I want to launch a new Activity to display some complex information. Because of the complexity, it is undesirable to serialize the information into the intent's parameters. Is it possible for the the new Activity to get a reference to the launching activity, so it can call its methods?
If you use a custom application class, you can store information that will be kept between the activities.
See a tutorial here for instance.
The lifetime of an Activity cannot be depended upon. In this case, one way of sharing data is to have a singleton which holds the data to be shared between the two activities.
You can add a public static field to the first activity containing this (the first activity).
But beware that the first activity could be destroyed by Android while you are using the second activity, so you will have to implement a fallback method if the first activity is destroyed.
And don’t forget to unset the public static variable in the onDestroy() callback of the first activity or you will leak memory.
Is it possible for the the new Activity to get a reference to the launching activity, so it can call its methods?
Please do not do that. Android can and will destroy activities to free up memory.
Complex information like you describe should not be owned by an activity. It should be held in a central data model, like you would in any other application. Whether that central data model is mediated by a Service or a singleton or a custom Application object depends a bit on the type of data, caching models, risks of memory leaks, and so on.
You can make your complex objects public and static in ActivityA, and access them in ActivityB like this:
MyCustomObjectType complexFromA = ActivityA.complexObject;
this will work, however while in ActivityB, you can't always be sure that static objects from ActivityA will exist(they may be null) since Android may terminate your application.
so then maybe add some null checking:
if(null == ActivityA.complexObject) {
//go back to ActivityA, or do something else since the object isn't there
}
else {
//business as usual, access the object
MyCustomObjectType complexFromA = ActivityA.complexObject;
}
You could also use a Singleton object which extends Application. You would have the same problem when Android terminates your application. always need to check if the object actually exists. Using the Singleton extending Application approach seems to be the more organized way - but adds more complexity to implementation. just depends what you need to do and whatever works for your implementation.
You should create a separate class that both the activities can use.
public class HelperClass{
public void sharedFunction(){
//implement function here
}
}
I would recommend staying away from static variable in android. It can cause some unexpected behavior.
Use getParent() from new activity and call parent's method
Android Activity call another Activity method
I'm working on a fairly complex Android application that requires a somewhat large amount of data about the application (I'd say a total of about 500KB -- is this large for a mobile device?). From what I can tell, any orientation change in the application (in the activity, to be more precise) causes a complete destruction and recreation of the activity. Based on my findings, the Application class does not have the same life-cycle (i.e. it is, for all intents and purposes, always instantiated). Does it make sense to store the state information inside of the application class and then reference it from the Activity, or is that generally not the "acceptable" method due to memory constraints on mobile devices? I really appreciate any advice on this topic. Thanks!
I don't think 500kb will be that big of a deal.
What you described is exactly how I tackled my problem of losing data in an activity. I created a global singleton in the Application class and was able to access it from the activities I used.
You can pass data around in a Global Singleton if it is going to be used a lot.
public class YourApplication extends Application
{
public SomeDataClass data = new SomeDataClass();
}
Then call it in any activity by:
YourApplication appState = ((YourApplication)this.getApplication());
appState.data.UseAGetterOrSetterHere(); // Do whatever you need to with the data here.
I discuss it here in my blog post, under the section "Global Singleton."
Those who count on Application instance are wrong. At first, it may seem as though the Application exists for as long as the whole app process exists but this is an incorrect assumption.
The OS may kill processes as necessary. All processes are divided into 5 levels of "killability" specified in the doc.
So, for instance, if your app goes in the background due to the user answering to an incoming call, then depending on the state of the RAM, the OS may (or may not) kill your process (destroying the Application instance in the process).
I think a better approach would be to persist your data to internal storage file and then read it when your activity resumes.
UPDATE:
I got many negative feedbacks, so it is time to add a clarification. :) Well, initially I realy used a wrong assumption that the state is really important for the app. However if your app is OK that sometimes the state is lost (it could be some images that will be just reread/redownloaded), then it is fully OK to keep it as a member of Application.
If you want to access the "Global Singleton" outside of an activity and you don't want to pass the Context through all the involved objects to obtain the singleton, you can just define a static attribute in your application class, which holds the reference to itself. Just initialize the attribute in the onCreate() method.
For example:
public class ApplicationController extends Application {
private static ApplicationController _appCtrl;
public static ApplicationController getAppCtrl()
{
return _appCtrl;
}
}
Because subclasses of Application also can obtain the Resources, you could access them simply when you define a static method, which returns them, like:
public static Resources getAppResources()
{
return _appCtrl.getResources();
}
But be very careful when passing around Context references to avoid memory leaks.
Dave, what kind of data is it? If it's general data that pertains to the application as a whole (example: user data), then extend the Application class and store it there. If the data pertains to the Activity, you should use the onSaveInstanceState and onRestoreInstanceState handlers to persist the data on screen rotation.
You can actually override the orientation functionality to make sure that your activity isn't destroyed and recreated. Look here.
You can create Application class and save your all data on that calss for use that anywhere in your application.
I know this is the very old question but using the ViewModel from the jetpack components is the best way to preserve the data between Activity rotation.
The ViewModel class is designed to store and manage UI-related data in a lifecycle conscious way. The ViewModel class allows data to survive configuration changes such as screen rotations.