Pass parameter WeakReference<View> to method of ViewModel? - android

Our teams are debating whether we should pass parameter WeakReference<View> to method of ViewModel or not. I see in the google's document said
Note: Since the ViewModel outlives specific activity and fragment instantiations, it should never reference a View, or any class that may hold a reference to the activity context. If the ViewModel needs the Application context (for example, to find a system service), it can extend the AndroidViewModel class and have a constructor that receives the Application in the constructor (since Application class extends Context).
How about if we use WeakReference<View> to pass view to viewmodel ? WeakRef can prevent the leak memory can occur, however some members said it will make reading/maintain code difficultly. Some guys suggest use interface ViewInf and View will implement to ViewInf and method use in viewmodel will be like that.
fun methodA(viewInf: WeakReference<ViewInf>)() {
doSomeBackgroundThread(viewInf)
}
We want to use this view to draw on bitmap and use bitmap to save into memcache.

The cautionary note from Google makes sense, as the ViewModel is not supposed to do anything other than transport data.
Sometimes we get so caught up in the "object-oriented" part of the design that we forget that domain objects, and application infrastructure objects, should only interact to extract data from, or inject data into the application for processing.

Related

How can I access my activity's ViewModel from within a service?

I am building an app that needs to detect certain objects in photos. I first load and keep all the photos I'd like to inspect into my room Database and connect it to my view with a ViewHolder.
When the user clicks a button, I want the detection process to begin, and I want to use a jobIntentService for that (As there might be thousands of photos there).
My problem is - how do I access the view holder from within the Service? I need it both to actually get a hold of the files and also so I can update each file's record once detection has been made.
I've tried to ask for the activity as one of the attributes, but I am getting this error
Unable to instantiate service tech.levanter.anyvision.services.DetectJobIntentService: java.lang.InstantiationException: java.lang.Class<tech.levanter.anyvision.services.DetectJobIntentService> has no zero argument constructor
Would appreciate any input, thanks
ViewModels holds particular significance for Activities and Fragments (e.g. they retain data during config changes). So a Service doesn't really need it. Hence you can resolve the issue in one of two ways.
Approach 1:
If your MyViewModel is just a wrapper for accessing LiveData from your Repository class, then you can just use your Repository class inside your Service.
Approach 2:
If your ViewModel is doing more than just wrapping calls to the Repository and you want your Service class to have access to the same logic defined in your ViewModel, then use an intermediate ViewModelContent class. Instead of putting everything in your MyViewModel class, put them in a "ViewModelContent" class. Then use your MyViewModel class as an accessor wrapper around ViewModelContent. Then your Service can instantiate ViewModelContent as you would any other class.
class MyViewModel(application: Application) : AndroidViewModel(application) {
init{
viewModelContent = ViewModelContent(...)
}
}
Approach 1 will usually be cleaner than Approach 2.

Why do we use Application Context in Constructors in Android?

While using Room Database i found that classes like Repository and ViewModel used Application Context as arguments in their Constructors.
I Just want to know the reason,why this is done?
And is it a Compulsion to use the application context?
public WordViewModel (Application application) {
super(application);
mRepository = new WordRepository(application);
mAllWords = mRepository.getAllWords();
}
WordRepository(Application application) {
WordRoomDatabase db = WordRoomDatabase.getDatabase(application);
mWordDao = db.wordDao();
mAllWords = mWordDao.getAllWords();
}
Curious to Know the reason behind the stuff
Why can't we use a Activity Context?
Caution: A ViewModel must never reference a view, Lifecycle, or any class that may hold a reference to the activity context.
ViewModel objects are designed to outlive specific instantiations of views or LifecycleOwners. This design also means you can write tests to cover a ViewModel more easily as it doesn't know about view and Lifecycle objects.
Why can we use a Application Context?
If the ViewModel needs the Application context, for example to find a system service, it can extend the AndroidViewModel class and have a constructor that receives the Application in the constructor, since Application class extends Context.
See ViewModel
let me give you a lazy answer to this question. Application context lifecycle is tied to the lifecycle of the application whereas activity context is tied to the lifecycle of that activity. Make sure to use the right context to prevent memory leaks . Hope this helps

Define MainActivity as static variable in order to access findViewById method

While I was coding, I wanted to use findViewById method to find a view that cant access in the current view but can be accessed via the MainActivity. So two options came to my mind. One is creating a static method from that object in the MainActivity class and access the static object. The second method is to create a static object form MainActivity class itself(this) and access the findViewById method by calling the static object. Please answer the method I should use.
And apart from that, it got me thinking that whether an Android developer should come across this type of scenario or whether I have done some improper coding to access findViewById method in MainActivity while I was in a different view.
You can take a look at the code in the below repo.
https://github.com/chrish2015/ExpenseTrackerLatest
Thanks
If you are inside a class that is neither a Context nor an Activity and you need to use a method which exists inside the activity or context, then simply pass the activity as a parameter to that class and take an instance to that activity inside your class.
public class MyAdapter extends ArrayAdapter { // this is not activity
private Activity mActivity; // activity is a member of this class.
public MyAdapter(Activity activity, List<String> data) {
mActivity = activity;
}
public View getView(...) {
// if you need to use findViewById:
View view = mActivity.findViewById(R.id.some_id);
}
}
Don't use any of your two methods.
I might be misunderstanding your first sentence, but just to be sure, are you asking for a way to access a View that exists in the MainActivity, while you're inside of a Fragment?
If that's what you're asking, then yes, as an Android Developer, there will definitely be moments where we come across this scenario. However, the solution is definitely NOT by making your Views or Context static.
This is one of the easiest ways to cause bugs to appear throughout your app, with a very high chance to cause memory leaks too. Here's an Article from Google talking about memory leaks related to keeping a reference to a Context: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2009/01/avoiding-memory-leaks.html
Rather than your two options, there are better solutions that developers typically use.
First of all, keep in mind that you should NOT be directly accessing any Views from outside of your current layout... meaning, that if you're in a second Activity, you don't directly access Views from the first Activity, or if you're in a Fragment, you don't directly access Views that belong to it's FragmentActivity.
Instead, you let the Activity or Fragment handle it's own Views.
So for example, if you're in another Activity and you want to update some data in the previous Activity, you can take advantage of an Activity's startActivityForResult() and onActivityResult() to obtain the data necessary to update the Activity immediately upon returning to the app.
For Fragments, there's actually a tutorial from the Android Documentation that describes a very good way to communicate between other Fragments: https://developer.android.com/training/basics/fragments/communicating
This method is to use interfaces as a callbacks, so another Fragment or the Activity will be able to receive data and update it's Views within it's own layout.
So for your case, if you're using Fragments and an Activity, you can easily have your fragments and activities communicate to each other in a safer and more reliable way.
Also, make sure you read up more on static and it's effects on your code, especially the side effects on Android components. Do not carelessly use static without considering some of the effects it might cause, because that would cause an endless amount of trouble to your code.

Context in MVVM in android

I have started working on MVVM architecture for android application.I have a doubt that is it right to pass the context to view model ? If not then how can my view model can access the context if needed.
I am doing the following things:
Feed data using some EditText.
Send this data to View model.
View model send this data to repository
Repository storing this data to shared preferences of the device.
As shared preferences required context to instantiate the object.
I am new to this architecture any guidance would be helpful for me, thanks in advance.
I think the use of ApplicationContext is ok, You can extend your ViewModel from AndroidViewModel and whenever you need a reference to the context use getApplication() methods.
Even better, if your using dagger, you don't need this at all, you just inject your ApplicationContext where ever you need it. It can be in your view model or a utility class that handles shared preference, etc.
UPDATE 2019
I don't want to mislead anyone with my old post, so figured I better update it.
With the latest release of the architectural components and JetPack, MVVM is now a real competitor for actual proper structure of breaking apart the code base in a very clean way.
The View is the Activity or Fragment along with the xml that is inflated basically (that's a bit of a weird MVVM, I know, but let's roll with it).
The ViewModel is the actual ViewModel classes offered now with lifecycle scopes and observers. Due to these new features, and life cycle management tools, the ViewModel is very nice at maintaining the data for the view while accessing the Repository Layer of Room DB or Retro API for fetching appropriate LiveData, Observable Data or just standard Models.
I'll leave this here as I feel it was very relevant during the earlier pre Architecture Implementation Days, but if you are not using the Architecture Components and JetPack, Boy are you missing out lol. Code is getting so much cleaner and smaller. :)
OLD REPLY
This is a long debated discussion among the Android community. When we refer to MVC it is obvious that Models (aka data holding objects) are the M, Controllers = C for the Activity classes (in iOS they actually call them UIViewControllers) and the V for the View in Android is the XML file itself. Now some would argue the architectural breakdown of what represents what. However, let's move past this and discuss MVVM.
MVVM has been around for many years now. There have been a few attempts in the past to bring it to Android through 3rd party binding tools, but it ends up more hacky then it is worth.
Recently with the release of native Data Binding Android is finally capable of doing a somewhat clean implementation of MVVM. So there are a couple options here. You can do
M = Models (data holding objects)
V = Views (the XML file itself representing the UI)
VM = This is where debates occur.
Some say in order to be a "true" ViewModel one must have true separation from the Presentation layer and the Activity class itself has lifecycle callbacks thus making it unworthy of being known as the ViewModel.
Others would point out that in order to handle most of the actions triggered from the ViewModel one must have an awareness of onActivityResult, onNewIntent, onBroadcastReceived, onPause or other life cycle handlings to appropriately manage the user experience. So On my team we consider the Activity as the ViewModel. Otherwise you are passing the activity down to a viewmodel and tightly coupling the two anyways, making a giant hideous maintenance nightmare of code.
So you if you want my opinion, stick to treating the Activity as your ViewModel. Get your data to the ViewModel just like any other binding technology like INotifyPropertyChanged in WPF. You do it through your Binding.
I do two things to make this happen. One I have an Activity variable in the XML layout to inject in the onCreate for the binding setup which gives the XML direct binding rights to any observable properties in the viewModel aka the activity. Then I inject whatever variables I need to make use of as well for example you may have a WeatherModel that populates a forecast that lives within the Activity that you would also set in the onCreate to allow the XML access to both it's ViewModel (aka activity) and it's viewModel's Objects.
The other alternative is to make a ViewModel object and inject it in the XML in the onCreate of your Activity and then continue to call back and forth from the activity to the viewmodel for handling actions and lifecycles and feel free to manage that nightmare haha, I did an entire project this way and by the end of it, I redid it all to avoid all the duplication of coding efforts and hideous back and forths.
Goodluck and I hope that helps.
A very good question, and it is not as simple as it seems!
You can see an example from Google team here.
They solved the problem with the help of the factory.
There it is pass (of course) the Application context (not Activity context !).
A small problem - and so much boilerplate code!
My decision:
public class MainApplication extends Application {
public void onCreate() {
AppSharedPref sharedPref = AppSharedPref.getInstance(PreferenceManager.getDefaultSharedPreferences(this));
AppRepository.getInstance(sharedPref);
Repository is singltone (a lot of code is skipped for brevity):
public class AppRepository implements AppDataSource {
public static AppRepository getInstance(#NonNull AppSharedPref sharedPref) {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
INSTANCE = new AppRepository(sharedPref);
}
return INSTANCE;
}
In ViewModel call:
public class MyViewModel extends AndroidViewModel {
// constructor
public MyViewModel(#NonNull Application application) {
repository = AppRepository.getInstance(.....);
}
Look into Dagger 2!
That's true , you definitively shouldn't pass Activity to your xml or ViewModel. It will make your ViewModel no better than these 2000-line activities that we are trying to move away from with this architecture.
The solution we have in our MVVM project is to inject SharedPreferences with Dagger. You can of corse use ApplicationContext as well but do you need multiple instances of SharedPreferences in the project??
We a have a utility class for SharedPreferences and it is nice to keep it a singleton and inject wherever you need it.
I use MVVM in my application. I always try not to use Context inside my View Model. I also encountered the problem with SharedPreferences requiring a context to access the preference files. One of my solutions without using Dagger is to create a Preference utility class that will have reference to the application context. You initialize this utility class in you Application class. You get reference to the shared preference through a public static method provided by the utility class. You can directly call the utility class from your repository class. I prefer to contain all logic related to data storage in the repository class that's why i call the sharedpreference utility class in my repository class.
PreferenceManager.java
public class PreferenceManager {
private static SharedPreferences mSharedpreferences;
private PreferenceManager() {}
public static void initialize(Context context) {
mSharedpreferences= context.getSharedPreferences(context.getPackageName(),
Context.MODE_PRIVATE);
}
public static SharedPreferences getSharedPreferences() {
return mSharedpreferences;
}
}
App.java
public class App extends Application {
#Override
public void onCreate() {
PreferenceManager.initialize(this);
}
}
Repository.java
public class Repository {
public void someMethod() {
PreferenceManager.getSharedPreferences.edit.putBoolean("sample", true).apply();
}
You should use AndroidViewModel() in the ViewModel, pass application:Applicatoin, and use getApplication() to get the context.
ViewModel Example:
class MainTrendsViewModel (application: Application) : AndroidViewModel(application) {
// ViewModel must extend AndroidViewModel(), and pass application to it.
// Code here and
// use getApplication() to get context
}
Other anwer that work for me that you could reference: reference answer that works for me
You should use AndroidViewModel class or keep reference to Application context in yours ViewModel implementation in this case.
ViewModel class was designed to keep data persistent between different instances of Activity through its lifecircle and storing reference to one of Activity instance context really doesn't make sense.

AndroidViewModel vs ViewModel

With the introduction of the Android Architecture Components library, several new classes were introduced, including AndroidViewModel and ViewModel. However, I'm having trouble figuring out the difference between these two classes. The documentation succinctly describes AndroidViewModel as follows:
Application context aware ViewModel
I appreciate the brevity, but what exactly does this imply? When should we choose to use AndroidViewModel over ViewModel and vice-versa?
AndroidViewModel provides Application context
If you need to use context inside your Viewmodel you should use AndroidViewModel (AVM), because it contains the application context. To retrieve the context call getApplication(), otherwise use the regular ViewModel (VM).
AndroidViewModel has application context.
We all know having static context instance is evil as it can cause memory leaks!! However, having static Application instance is not as bad as you might think because there is only one Application instance in the running application.
Therefore, using and having Application instance in a specific class is not a problem in general. But, if an Application instance references them, it is a problem because of the reference cycle problem.
See Also about Application Instance
AndroidViewModel Problematic for unit tests
AVM provides application context which is problematic for unit testing. Unit tests should not deal with any of the Android lifecycle, such as context.
Finally I got something a simpler explanation, a bit......
...The AndroidViewModel class is a subclass of ViewModel and similar to them, they are designed to store and manage UI-related data are responsible to prepare & provide data for UI and automatically allow data to survive configuration change.
The only difference with AndroidViewModel is it comes with the application context, which is helpful if you require context to get a system service or have a similar requirement. the bold text makes it clearer to sense it.
AndroidViewModel is subclass of ViewModel. The Difference between them is we can pass Application Context which can be used whenever Application Context is required for example to instantiate Database in Repository.
AndroidViewModel is a Application context aware ViewModel.
AndroidViewModel:
public class PriceViewModel extends AndroidViewModel {
private PriceRepository priceRepository;
public PriceViewModel(#NonNull Application application) {
super(application);
priceRepository= new PriceRepository(application);
allPrices = priceRepository.getAllPrices();
}
ViewModel:
public class PriceViewModel extends ViewModel {
public PriceViewModel() {
super();
}
You Should use AndroidViewModel only when you require Application
Context.
You should never store a reference of activity or a view that references a activity in the ViewModel.Because ViewModel is designed to outlive a activity and it will cause Memory Leak.
Apart from the difference that AndroidViewModel gives you an application context whereas ViewModel does not. The important thing that you must understand is that Google itself recommends using ViewModel and not AndroidViewModel.
So, don't use AndroidViewModel unless it is really necessary.
See this: GOOGLE DOC

Categories

Resources