I know this question might not be one which has just one correct answer. But letting me know, that there are several solutions with good reasons for each of them, would already help a lot. So here we go:
I have designed an app which manages persons along with measurement data for each person. The data can be displayed in a chart. Generally this leads to the following tasks:
Person: Add
Person: View
Person: Edit
Person: Delete (more an option with a security dialog than a real screen)
Measurements: View (List)
Measurement: Add
Measurement: Delete (again more an option with a security dialog)
Measurements: Plot (in a large graph view)
The app will run on a phone at first. I have read that an activity is supposed to serve a very limited purpose, so the scenario would lead to one activity for each task.
However, when the app is displayed on a tablet in landscape mode, I can imagine to have three sections on the screen at once:
One section in the top right cornern managing persons
One section below that listing the values for the selected person
One larger section on the right part of the screen to plot measurements
I often read that I should avoid to create god activities. On the other hand I read that fragments is the way to go, so that each screen can easily be displayed as a subscreen on a tablet, as it is planned here.
I started off with creating the app for mobile phones, so I created one activity, which juggles all fragments (almost one for each task) in a single fragment container.
Is this the way to go, when I want to do it by the book?
I was wondering whether I should create a separate activity for each task. For the phone this makes things easier. But on a tablet I would have to control the fragments from one single activity anyway, correct? So in that case a god activity it needs to be?
You are definitely on the right track, but there are some things you may want to look into.
In my opinion Activities should only be used to host Fragments and transfer events between Fragments. Basically, the only logic that you should have in your Activity is handling the navigation. The logic stays in the Fragments (or some other layer, used by your Fragments) and it is not exposed to the Activity at all. In that way there will be no need to duplicate any logic and make some Activity a "God" Activity.
Good that you started thinking about it. You should always prevent god activity. Read about MVC, MVP & android architecture patterns which help you avoid creating a god object.
Related
I am learning android from two resources one from video and one from book +(android developer resources ). Both show how to have multiple views in a different ways. Video one used activity and intent book used fragments. What is the best practice fragment/activity?When to use Activity and when to use Fragment.
You will most likely hear things like
You can have an Activity without a Fragment but you cannot have a Fragment without Activity
You can have multiple Fragments under a single Activity
You can use Fragments to have multiple sections in a single screen
Fragments has its own lifecycle
So I'd give my personal thought and a little bit of scenario based on my own experience on how I would decide which to use based on a given scenario.
Consider a Registration Form where I'm required to create 3 screen features of which contains Basic Personal Info, Financial Information and Online Mailing Information, in this case I would use multiple Fragments under 1 hosting Activity named RegistrationActivity.
Now consider same application where I'm required to create a User Setting Screen it wouldn't make sense if I create another Fragment under that same Activity right?, so that would be a separate context and everything about it will go to another Activity named SettingsActivity
There are more technical things under the hood, but most of the time you will decide which to use based on the use-case you are dealing with.
There is also an up to date architecture namely Modular design where each closely related components are grouped inside a module library, majority of such project will fall under the feature category where most of the time if not all, have single Activity hosting multiple fragments. And going back to my scenario it would be like a Registration Module
Hope it make sense.
Have a look at another similar post
Why fragments, and when to use fragments instead of activities?
I'm pretty much new to Android, but over the last two or three weeks I've managed to figure out most of its innards and how things work.
However, one thing is still bothering me - what's the basic difference between Activities and simple forms? Well, I know Android doesn't have such thing as a 'form', but by that I mean a fullscreen layout of elements that has an underlying class and all its functionality is executed in it, rather than in a process-wide class (Activity, to be precise).
As long as I understand, Activity is a separate process that's instantiated by OS to perform some actions that are basicly independent of the whole application. That also means that we can run only one of the application's activities, and it will still perform all of its functions without needing the whole application to be loaded. For example, if we have a movie player that can also convert movies from one codec to another, we can implement that functionality as a separate Activity so that other applications, like file managers, will also be able to convert movies between codecs using only that Activity, and not the whole application.
And that seems perfectly straightforward. The question is - why is everybody using separate Activities for functionality that cannot be separated from the application? In other words, people generally use Activities where I think simple forms within the same process would be more appropriate. For instance, I've seen people using a separate Activity for things like application settings, which obviously wouldn't be be launched outside the app itself, or editing application-specific data, which wouldn't be done outside the app as well, since the data to be edited should be selected from a list only known to the application.
Another example right from my experience - a unit converter application. It has a main menu with a GridView of units' categories, in each category there is a list of units and by clicking any unit we have a 'calculator' form for entering value that we want to convert. If I'd been doing that like everyone suggests I'd have three Activities - one for the main menu, one for the list of units and one for entering the value. But why? Why would I want to launch any of those three Activities separate from the application? If I'd want to launch main menu Activity - well, why not launch the whole application then? If I want just a list of units - again, just launch the whole application, it's not like some Facebook client is going to convert values between pressure units (since the list of units covers only one category at a time). And launching an activity for the calculator simply would not work, since it should return to the list to perform conversions and you'd have no list activity launched.
And anyway, even if I'm wrong and people use it wisely there's still an issue that Android SDK doesn't really provide any support for forms as I'm used to. Yes, there are things like ViewAnimator, ViewSwitcher etc. But all they do is switch layouts in their place, and that is hardly switching between forms as such. So the only choice to get close to that functionality at least is to use Activities. And we're back to the square one.
So to put it simply - am I missing something from the Android philosophy? Because I'm pretty sure that using a separate Activity (and a separate process as a result) for every single form in the application is an overkill. And if it really is and everybody knows that - why doesn't Android have any substantial form switching mechanism?
Thanks in advance for any clarification on this issue.
An activity isn't spawned in a separate process (unless you explicitly tell it to). Everything in your APK will be spawned in your process. Even if another application is using your Activity for whatever reason.
You can make your Activity "effectively" private to your application by not assigning any intent-filter to it in your manifest.
For the examples given, a form is equal to an activity. That isn't a universal statement as you delve deeper into Android, but for a beginner that's a decent analogy to make. Another common analogy is that Activities are more like web pages than traditional forms based UI.
As Android documentation states: "An activity is a single, focused thing that the user can do."
However with Fragments we will be able to do many "things" within the same Activity as Reto Meier suggest. His suggestion is to replace a selection fragment by a content fragment within the same Activity (section "Within our code this produces a dilemma").
Lets say my application is a "bit" more complex, with many activities, with a complex navigation tree and designed with the "single, focused thing that the user can do" principle in mind.
Lets say now I have to adapt it to Fragments and large screens... and that I don't want to create a second application, neither have two completely different logics (one for phones other for tables) inside one application.
Should I have one Activity to manage all the application fragments and fragment transactions? Like Retro Meier suggest above. Is that the recommended path to follow? Thus breaking with the "single, focused thing that the user can do" principle for Activities?
Or am I missing something? I hope ;)
BTW, I think Fragments looks great, but from what I have seen till now, only if you are creating an application from the scratch. Because making applications to be compatible with phone and tablet looks like going to be a bit tedious. Hope to be wrong :)
Dianne Hackborn already has answered (thx for the link mgv):
you could put your entire application in one activity in which you change the fragment structure as its state changes
So then Activity becomes a sort of container where you will be able to plug Fragments. I like the approach, but... in my app there are about 30 different operations available, each one requires about 2 to 4 screens steps to be performed(forms and selection lists), all of them differ and there are also navigation restrictions. It works fine with Activities each one handling one screen/step behaviour.
So then to port to Fragments I should move each screen logic to Fragments and use Activities as containers for each operation. Thus leaving Activities as the ones managing the navigation between Fragments for every operation, right? Looks like going to be a pain to adapt long applications. :(
Current Activity definition should change a bit btw. :)
Should I have one Activity to manage all the application fragments and fragment transactions?
That is impossible to answer in the abstract. However, most applications will have multiple activities, even in a fragment-based world. Some of that will be to accommodate smaller screen sizes, where it will tend to be one fragment per activity. Some of that will be required by the framework (e.g., inheriting from PreferenceActivity). And, some of that will be by GUI design.
Thus breaking with the "single, focused thing that the user can do" principle for Activities?
That portion of the documentation was written in 2008, perhaps earlier. Had fragments existed back then, I imagine the documentation would state that a fragment is a "single, focused thing that the user can do", with activities serving as an orchestration layer, determining what fragments are visible in what circumstances.
The documentation will not in all places be updated to reflect fragments, and even if it does, it will take some time. For the balance of 2011, at minimum, you will need to perform your own translations of 2008-era instructions to convert them to 2011-era fragment-based UIs.
Lets say now I have to adapt it to Fragments and large screens... and that I don't want to create a second application, neither have two completely different logics (one for phones other for tables) inside one application.
I have no idea what you consider "completely different logics" to be. In a fragment-based app, most of your business logic will be in the fragments themselves. The activities, again, serve as an orchestration layer, determining what fragments should be visible and coordinating event handling. The latter will get a bit more complicated than it used to be, since sometimes clicking on an item in a list will bring up a new fragment and sometimes clicking on an item in a list will start a new activity, depending on screen size.
Or am I missing something?
To be honest, you are missing enough concreteness to your question to make it reasonably answerable.
I am creating an android application that has a lot of different screens where the user can navigate to those screens using the buttons or list provided in those screens. What would be the best way to design the entire app's navigation flow? Should I map each screen to be View or an Activity? Can an design an entire android app with just one activity and many views, where each view represents one screen with many other UI elements (buttons, lists, images etc)
I suggest you use for every "screen" that is significantly different from another screen (in both look and data that it is related to) a new activity. This gives you easier control and you don't have to mess up your code with plenty of variables to define different states. Using different activites you usually shouldn't have to worry about running in a undesirable or even undefined state.
To exchange data between activities you can use putExtra() to add "simple" data to an INTENT or for more complex data you can extend Application and use that instance as a singleton, which you then can access via (MyApplication)getApplication();
You really want to stay away from the single activity idea. That's actually an anti-pattern from the java model 1 web application days called "The magic servlet". I guess here it would be called "The magic activity". Each logical "screen" that the user interacts with should be an instance of the Activity class.
Modifying individual user interface elements based on user interaction is fine as long as it's just one or two elements, or just a portion of the screen, but for the most part you should be looking for reasons to split things out into their own activities, not looking for reasons to keep things together. In the long run it will make your code easier to maintain and understand.
I have developed some apps for Android, and this questions stays always:
How should I structure my UI? Should I launch activity after activity and leave the phone to make the "back" button, or should I choose more optimized, but more complex to implement, way with switching manually Views and then manually doing the "Back" button functionality?
What do you think (or know) is the better practice?
I would say that multiple Activities almost always makes more sense. I just don't think Android is designed for constantly switching its own views - you miss out on so much. You have to implement Back yourself, you don't get any inter-Activity transitions, you have to implement a lot of internal logic to resume an application in the correct state. If you don't partition your app into Activities, it makes it a lot more difficult later on to change the flow of your application. It also results in one mega-Activity that can be a lot harder to handle than a lot of smaller pieces of code.
I have trouble imagining that speed is really an issue; if it is then there's something wrong with the way you're initializing each Activity. For example, I used try to pass Serializable objects between Activities, and that proved to be incredibly slow; when I switched to a faster method of passing objects, the speed of launching Activities increased immensely.
Also, I think it's telling that the Android guidelines for Activity and Task Design don't mention switching Views at all; it's centered around an Activity-as-View design.
I'd like to point out some instances when a single activity might be better design for an Android application that has more than one full screen View:
If the application screens are tightly coupled and share a common Object that they are all operating on. In this case passing around the Object may require a Bundle and can be error prone since there will be copies of it. A good example might be a wizard. Yes you could use static's to access the common Object but static can be dangerous in Android (think configuration changes!)
If you want some really cool animations in between screens. Maybe you want a bird to take off in one screen and land in another screen. Try doing that when each screen is an activity!
On the other hand if one of your screens is designed to be shown by any number of other applications then that screen should be its own Activity.
UPDATE March 2014:
At this point the question should now include the choice of Fragments. I think that Views are probably the least likely choice of the 3: Activity, Fragment, View. If you want to implement screens that make use of the back button then it should be either Activties or Fragments because both handle the back button natively. Fragments will need to be added to the FragmentManager back stack for the back button to work. Managing fragments, dialogs and the back stack can be a bit of an annoyance though!
UPDATE Sept 2018:
Some devs at Google are recommending single activity apps using the new navigation architecture component.
Also keep in mind that implementing your app with multiple Activities will give the user a more coherent experience with the platform as a whole. Part of the experience will be shaped by using the built-in Google apps, so users will probably have an easier time using your application if it behaves similarly to the ones that are already installed on the phone.
Different from others I use a mixture of both, for example,
1. There is a main menu when the application starts
2. You click on search, takes you to search activity
3. Then there's a filter button, which just switches view and shows you filter options
4. There are two buttons at the end of the filter view, You hit "Search" or "Cancel" and you are back to the Search View again (without switching activity)
5. Now if the user hits the phone back button he's taken back to the main menu instead of the search filter options. Which I guess is the correct behavior.
Use it the way user will feel natural. And keeping everything in one activity will make it complex.
It all depends on application, what are you trying to achieve better performance, smoother UI. IMHO I prefer the second approach of controlling the Activities manually even that it is more complex as you have stated. This is a approach I have used in my android tabs project, also you might want to take a look at a class called ActivityGroup (not sure the package) it allows you to have multiple activities that you can switch between, good thing about this class is that your activities are not unloaded when you switch but a bad thing is it takes longer to load your main app.
Just my opinion.
The problem with switching views, that I stumbled upon, is also caused by garbage collector. Seems that GC is triggered when you leave activity and not the view. So, changing tabs with a fairly complex children views, for instance, will almost inevitably lead to stack overflow exception..
I've experienced so many problems with multiple activity layout that I strongly discourage it, unless there's good reason to pick it.
Disadvantage of multiple activities
Using multiple activities it is much hard to refactor code to return data from activity.
If you call a 'sub'-activity then the main activity may be killed. But you never experience that while debugging on a decent device, hence you need to handle always saving state and correctly recovering state. That is a pain. Imagine calling a method on a library (ie. another activity), and you would have to be ensure that when that method returns your app must be able to recreate its state completely with all fields on all objects in the VM (ie. activity.restoreIntance). Its insane.
Also the other way round, when you open a subactivity the VM might have been killed since the subactivity was first spawned, such as when app is minimized while subactivity is displayed.
Its so much cleaner to just have one place to store the relevant app-state, and in my case, most often if VM is killed, I want to return user to main-screen, and let them do their stuff again, because I don't spend 30-50 hours coding save/resume functionality that 0.1% of users will ever experience.
Alternative
Fragments or just manage you activity views yourself. Managing views manually, requires coding some view-switching alternative to activities/fragments with transitions if desired.
And no it does not mean one mega-activity, as suggested in the accepted answer, in any other way than its one mega-app. It just requires a bit more design of the codebase into fitting pieces, because there's slightly more work managing views, though much less work managing activity-state and other weirdness.
Possibly relevant: Reddit: It's official : Google officially recommends single activity app architecture