I created a custom Application class for my app. This class onCreate sets a static variable of itself like this
public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
mInstance = this;
}
public static ChattyApp getInstance() {
return mInstance;
}
Then I use App.getInstance() method to get application context to a nonactivity/fragment class like API Controller or something. Can it cause a memory leak?
I setup leak canary and it is showing memory leak on an instance variable of Application class. This variable keeps socket.io's socket ref so that I can use it anywhere in the app.
It is a good question that you have asked and people on SO have had extensive discussions on this. Have a look at this and this
Although this seems to be an okay way to store the Context in Application class as per the discussion in the first link, there can be better ways to deal with this.
Ideally for each logic unit you should have a separate class to deal with it rather than polluting your application class. You application class can however initialize or setup those other classes. This will create a separation of concern.
Another way is to use Dagger2, which is a dependency injection framework, to inject your socket ref to wherever you want.
Dagger 2 has a steep learning curve and but a very important tool to learn as an Android developer
Related
I'm in the process of completely redesigning my Android app. Before, EVERYTHING was in the same class.
So I tried to redraw everything so that the code is clearer apart Admob than the doc advice to put in the Main thread, I separate the different part of my code in class. So I used two technique: I created a songleton that contains variables that I want to have access to constantly,and I call my classes via weak reference.
Here is what it looks like:
For example, the UIManager class that needs to update the game's IU have a weak reference looks like this:
private static SoftReference<UIManager> ManageUI;
static{ManageUI= new SoftReference<>(null);}
static UIManager get()
{
if(ManageUI.get()==null)
{
ManageUI= new SoftReference<>(new UIManager());
}
return ManageUI.get();
}
GameManager Manager=GameManager.getInstance();
to be able to use the findviewbyid for example I place in method argument the main class that is the mainthread
the singleton that contains all my variables that I want to have permanent access to looks like this:
private GameManager()
{}
/** Holder */
private static class Manager
{
/** Instance unique non préinitialisée */
private final static GameManager instance = new GameManager();
}
/** Point d'accès pour l'instance unique du singleton */
public static GameManager getInstance()
{
return Manager.instance;
}
To separate all in different class, I pass argument to my method so I can call au stuff belong to Activity like that:
(My main class is called GamePlay)
void OpenGlobalScene(GamePlay activity)
{
Manager.OnTitle=false;
if (!checkLayout(activity,R.id.globalscene)) {
LayoutInflater(activity,9, true);
LinearLayout GamePlan = (LinearLayout) activity.findViewById(R.id.globalscene);
GamePlan.setAlpha(Manager.AlphaBord);
}
}
For now, I have not noticed any problems except a few slownesses on old android phone 4.4.2.
Also compared to my old code were EVERYTHING was in the same class, it's much easier to change pieces of code (going to the inapp billing V3 was simpler since everything was in one class that I call like the others with weak referencre)
My questions are:
-What are the problems that such a structure might pose?
I had also chosen that structure to not load or leave in memory things that are not useful
-How are chance that Android will erase from memory an action in progress called with weak reference?
-As you can see I pass the activity has argument to the method, sometimes I pass it from a method to another. Is that fact can cause some trouble?
Thank you for your help.
Check Dagger2 is better than the clasic singleton https://developer.android.com/training/dependency-injection/dagger-android?hl=es-419
thanks for your answer and your tips. I'am gonna check this out.
Anyone else know something about consequences on memory when using weak references ?
From my understanding, Application in Android is a singleton (correct me if I'm wrong) and we always have just one application Context instance.
So, from this perspective, is it a bad practice to save the application Context in my Application class?
Can it lead to a massive memory leak?
Here is an example:
public class MyApp extends Application {
private static Context appContext = null; // <-- here is the thing!
#Override
public void onCreate() {
appContext = this;
}
public static Context getApplicationContextSingleton () {
return MyApp.appContext;
}
}
The reason to do this is globally accessed classes, like PreferencesManager, that mostly have static methods always need a context. So, instead of passing it everytime (or even storing it in an instance, which can be bad), I thought about storing the app context. What are the drawbacks I'm not seeing?
is it a bad practice to save the application Context in my Application class?
It is a code smell.
Can it lead to a massive memory leak?
Having the static data member will not lead to a massive memory leak. Whether your over-use of the Application object will lead to a massive memory leak depends upon where and how you use it.
What are the drawbacks I'm not seeing?
Not all Contexts are created equal. Generally speaking, only use Application when you know specifically why you need the Application context, not for everything.
Dave Smith of DoubleEncore has an awesome blog post covering the differences between types of Context and when to use one over another.
I recently tried out AndroidAnnotations in Android. It has many interesting options and I like the way it reduces the boilerplate code.
However recently I came across the singleton scope for custom classes. I noticed that AndroidAnnotations does not restrict me from creating a new instance. For example CustomClassA obj = new CustomClassA();, even if the scope of CustomClassA is singleton.
As far as I know this should be restricted as per singleton pattern. I would like to have a solution to overcome this problem.
AndroidAnnotations never change original code.
So it's up to the developer to make the constructor protected (or friendly) on the original class. It can't be private because generated class extends of the original one (so it has to be visible for this one).
And the constructor is private on the generated class :)
Recently I have started development in Java for Android.
My idea is to create one static class which will load ton of stuff on the beginning and store results for a lifetime of application.
I have been reading lot of how to share object between activities and I think the best will be to create one static class. What do you think? Should I use another approach? I am asking because I have read lot of counter opinions over the internet.
Thank you.
I'm assuming that you were referring to static fields of a class, as opposed to static class which, as Wyzard pointed out, is something completely different. As a general rule of thumb, holding information in static fields is not a good idea in Java. The reason for this is that it prevents the ability to instantiate multiple instances of whatever it is you store in the class.
In the specific case of an Android application, the best way to deal with the issue of having data stored associated with the application itself is to subclass the android.app.Application class and use it to handle application-global data:
class FooApplication extends Application
{
private String privData;
public String getPrivData() {
return privData;
}
}
You then need to declare that this class is your main application class (instead of the default Application). In the application entry in AndroidManifest.xml add the following:
<application android:name="com.example.application.FooApplication"
...>
...
</application>
You can then look up the application instance from anywhere inside your application using the method Context.getApplicationContext() which will be an instance of your Application subclass:
FooApplication app = (FooApplication)Context.getApplicationContext();
String privData = app.getPrivData();
Depending on from where you are trying to look for subclass of "Application", you may have to invoke the "getApplicationContext()" without "Context":
FooApplication app = (FooApplication)getApplicationContext();
String privData = app.getPrivData();
The problem with your solution is that you're basically creating a huge stack of globals. It's sometimes unavoidable, but it has the same type of problems globals always have- you quickly end up with hard to read code that doesn't really have a good OO breakdown. You can use this, but use it sparingly- only with important data structures that are really going to be shared between many activities.
Android provides a class called Application, which is will not be gc'ed as long as your Application isn't killed. Use this class for initialization, static classes as containers are somewhat ugly, but i can't pinpoint why that is.
I only use them as containers for constants such as bitmasks which can't be expressed as EnumSets.
As the other posts mention SharedPreferences: I think the preferences exist to store values, but not to load your structures that you need for you application. These structures should be loaded from a construct that represent or make up a model for your data's semantics.
There are many questions and answers on how to implement a global variable in Android/Java.
So it seems one can either implement a singleton or use a data class itself with static variables.
I am about to start a larger project and would like to start on the right foot.
I am just not sure which one to use.
Pro singleton/con Data Class
supposedly "cleaner" way (but I really don't know why)
ensures that there is really always just one representation
creates a new instance should the old one be "cleaned away" (whenever this may happen?)
Con singleton/pro Data Class
not recommendet by some (but did not find convincng reasons)
ensures that there is only one representation by design
very easy to access just by writing MyDataClass.x (vs accessing singleton requires getting access to it first somehow)
no need to pass it as a parameter
So in summary I tend to use DataClass but I am unsure because I read that this is supposedly not good programming style.
I like to add
the data this global object has to hold is quite big, more than 30k strings/keys. And this should not be cleaned at any stage so that when the app return it may crash because of that - as I read in other places eg Singletons vs. Application Context in Android? (the 3rd answer)
it's not a web application, I use only one classloader
it is multithread but only one thread is actually accessing this data
one may certainly also use this approach How to declare global variables in Android?, but isn't an ObjectClass just easier to use and access in this case?
And checking this http://developer.android.com/resources/faq/framework.html, esp under "Persistent Objects", implies that there is no real advantage for on or the other in those cases anyway.
Many thanks
Best way to implement singleton is to use enum.
public enum Singleton
{
INSTANCE;
public void someMethod()
{
// your code here
}
}
For more details you can read Effective Java (2nd Edition)
First of all: There's not much difference between a class with public static member variables and a singleton class. A lot of developers prefer the singleton pattern because the code looks more natural and more Java. E.g. Singleton.Data looks like a constant access and Singleton.getData() looks like you're accessing some kind of static data.
Personally I use the static Application pattern: See Accessing resources without an Activity or Context reference
You can use onCreate to setup any kind of static data or even other singletons. E.g. I prefer to setup a singleton SQLite database like that and access it then via App.getDb(). You can use this pattern to access the application context or resources.
While using static data you should think about memory leeks. I would recommend to take a look at this article then.