Develop Reference

Download multiple files in parallel like whats app in Android

I already know that using Services/Intent services we download multiple files in background. But this problem have one more complexity to solve.
I have to download multiple videos/images in different activities in parallel like whats app. I have seen in whats app that we can start download and then we can moves on different screens or press home button etc. But when we move back on that screen again the downloading is still continue with and showing the updated progress.
Like above there is 4 activities and user started downloading of ABC.mp4 on activity and A and then moves on to Activity B. Then moves on to C and started downloading of video/image. If user moves back on to the A and I want to show the progress of that ABC.mp4 file that how much downloaded and same case for the other activities.
Please let me know to you Services or any other way to do, so I can update the UI as well with the updated value of the downloading file. Any help is appreciated.

Well here's my piece of advice:
I did the same thing but with Pdf files a while a ago. First you need to choose a good Http client library to perform the downloads and forget about all the issues related to the downloads that you'll have if you perform this operations by yourself. I recommend you use the Ion librabry has a lot of useful features like cancel the downloads, attach callbacks to have an eye in the download progress, known if the download succeded, failed, etc.
Second, you obviously need a Service running in background, always, you can do this by making your own service, and It's very important that the Service process name in the android manifest is like android:name="com.company.app.services.MyService" and not like android:name=":MyRemoteService" doing so you'll make sure that the service will be running in background all the time (keep in mind that the OS can and will kill the service if It's neccesary, but the service will be restarted when the resources will made available again).
Third, to keep all the views, custom views, activities, fragments, etc. that display those files updated, you need trigger BroadcastReceivers from your Service. Keep in mind that doing so you can't use the LocalBroadcastReceiver, because your Service has its own process indipendent from your application.
Keep in mind that:
1) Theres no need to explicitly use an Activity, you can register your broadcasts anywhere where you see It fit. A RecyclerAdapter (most likely), a Fragment, or an Activity.
2) The communication App/Service is done through Intents so all data that you send to and from the Service must be Serializable.
3) You can use several different types of broadcast each one for differents situations (error, fail, success, progress, etc.) or you can use only one an send a enum that describe this kind of status through the Bundle of the Intent when you fire the broadcasts from your service
Hope this helps you, If you have any doubt, let me know.

Async task versus service to download data

I want to know which is better to download files, async task or service?
My app has eight buttons, which one starts one direfferent download (which download has ~10MB). When the user clicks on one button or more to download data is better to use async task or service?
Thanks!

In any case you should use AsyncTask because even service runs in the main (GUI) thread where no networking should be done. Whether to run the AsyncTask in a service or an activity depends on whether you want that download to continue in background.

all above answers have good points. but the life-cycle issue is the most important thing you should consider. for instance, let's say you use asyncTask. so the user starts downloading and suddenly he/she rotates the screen and because you tied the asyncTask life-cycle to activity another asyncTask operation will be kicked off and result in a compulsive 10mb download. so considering this you should use service and asyncTask together to maintain life-cycle issue and UI thread networking issue.
update: Intent-service is a better solution because it receives requests in its own thread and goes offline when it doesn't have anything to do

AsyncTask -- AsyncTask manipulate threads and/or handlers, if you can do that better with Looper and stuff why bother? AsyncTask is designed to be a helper class around Thread and Handler, and it should ideally be used for short operations (a few seconds at the most.).. how can you tell in production mode whether is not gonna take long? probably bad network, slow network,jammed network, phone restarting - and all these will probably make your downloading either corrupt or unfinished.. i am a user of apps, and i get pissed when i waste bundle on nothing..
if you ask me, use
Service
--Serviceis made to run irrespective of what app/screen is visible and make if communicate with the UI if only it is available if not continue with download and save it, AsyncTask does not constitute a generic threading framework. always use threads, its cool, we all love it.

When will one need to create a separate process in a Application?

I was reading a article in Android developer blog Process and Threads which talks about creating new process for specific component of Application. But I failed to understand when will creating a new process in my application becomes a absolute need. Could you please help me understand following doubts I have in this regard.
When as a developer I should feel I need to have a separate process for a Android component/s?
Does introducing a new process has any side effect on application's overall performance?
Any other info is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
SKU

Having a separate process can be useful if there are components of your application that do not necessarily need to both be running to be useful to the user, and the background task is critical to application "correctness" (either now or in the future). The classic example of this is an app that has a service where the service saves or uploads some data that is critical to your application (critical meaning the only way to get the data back is to have the user re-enter it!). The service might be responsible for doing something like uploading or saving data, while the activity is just the interface for the user. So developers should decouple these two components to prevent problems that may arise from my next point..
Android was designed to run in a resource (especially memory) constrained environment, so processes deemed unimportant are killed periodically to open up memory for important ones by the "low memory killer" (LMK) (if you Google this you'll get tons of information on the topic). Things like foreground processes are understandably given a higher priority since they're currently in use, but they're sometimes killed off as well for reasons like consuming too much memory. Now, imagine you need to save off some data to a database after the user does something in the app and you use a service to do so to ensure that it is done even if the user navigates away from the app. Unless you create the service in its own process the process containing both the activity and the service is likely to be killed since the process belongs to a non-foreground activity.
However it is not always necessary to place the service in its own process, oftentimes simply giving the service its own thread will suffice; it's very application specific. I would only place a service in its own process if it took longer than maybe a few seconds (long enough for the user to navigate away from my application and for the LMK to step in) to perform some task in the background and that task related to the "correctness" of my application (I.E. saving data for later). For something like caching, stick to threads, since if the process gets prematurely killed you can just recreate that data later.
Another reason to have a separate process is if you're running a global service (a service that can be used by applications other than your own) that maybe you provide an interface with via an Activity for configuration.
As for the performance question, there will definitely be a performance hit for something like this. Interprocess communication is not cheap, so you should really only use a separate process if you fit into a specific use case, like the ones mentioned above. Also, there's a certain amount of memory overhead for maintaining a process, so that's another performance hit.

1.)You need to do something on seperate process or thread when you don't want your app to behave slowly. As by introducing threads you force your app not to run on UI thread. Thus making your app responsive to other events. For Example : you can use threads when you have to fetch some data from web service so that it happens in background and doesn't effect your app.
2.)Threads should not be used..We should use AsyncTask or loaders rather in android.

1.) In android 4.0 (and possibly 3.0, not sure though) The device does not let you use the HTTP Agent in the main thread, for this slows the UI..
This is when threads come in handy.
Also with the use of functions that need alot of cpu, if these are run in the UI thread, the UI will lag and not respond until the function finishes.
2.) as stated at 1, it will actually improve the visual performance of your app ;)

Need two-way communication with a background process and Activity in Android - Suggestions?

Problem
Throughout my app I need to download files. In some cases I only need one-way communication, basically communicating with the Activity that a download has finished. In other cases, I need to be able to communicate to the background process to cancel the download, then relay back to the Activity once that task has been complete (two-way communication).
Stipulations
In all cases, a download is only associated with one Activity, so a Service seems unnecessary since I don't need to keep a download running in the background while the user does other things. The user is always blocked while the download is occurring. The download process should be Activity-independent (not specialized for one Activity...reuseable). It would be ideal to have one solution that meets all requirements.
Use cases
The two cases I have right now are as follows:
A user is shown a ProgressDialog while a file is being downloaded. Once the file completes downloading, the user proceeds to the next Activity. Progress does not need to be shown.
A user is shown a ProgressBar while a large file is being downloaded. There is a Cancel button to abort downloading the file. Pressing the Cancel button should signal to the background process to abort downloading the file, then inform the Activity once that action has been performed. Progress needs to be shown while downloading the file.
What I've tried
My original implementation was a separate class, ran in a thread, that passed in a Context that would broadcast progress. This allowed communication from the background process to the Activity, but not vise-versa.
I attempted a Service, but from various articles I read, determined my needs did not justify a Service, as the user needed to be blocked while the download was occurring. I had never implemented a Service before, so I also ran into communication problems (probably poor implementation).
What would be ideal
A two-way BroadcastReceiver. Is that possible? I like being able to register for a BroadcastReceiver if I want to get feedback from the background process, or not if I don't care. I already have a method in a class that takes in an InputStream and a File and makes the transfer, so that method is being reused everywhere that needs to download a file right now.

What you want to do is use an AsyncTask. Read these here on Stackoverflow:
Download a file with Android, and showing the progress in a ProgressDialog
and
Cancelling file download with httpclient and asynctask

Besides AsyncTask, you can also use Loaders.
They do pretty much what you need to do and I think they are available since android 1.6 with android compatibility package [related post]. I think this is your best option :)

android design considerations: AsyncTask vs Service (IntentService?)

I'm designing an android app which will need to do the following steps:
user pushes a button or otherwise indicates to "sync data".
sync process will use REST web services to move data to and from the server.
the data will be stored locally in a sqlite database.
the sync process should provide status updates/messages to the UI
the user should not be allowed to wander off to other parts of the application and do more work during the sync process.
The first time the sync process runs, it may take 10-20 minutes.
After the initial sync, less data will be transferred and stored and
I expect the process to take 1-2 minutes or less.
I've been doing a lot of reading about android's AsyncTask and various examples of using a Service ... But I don't fully understand the design considerations and trade-offs of choosing one design over the other. I currently have my demo project stubbed out using an AsyncTask. After watching (most of) Developing Android REST client applications: http://code.google.com/events/io/2010/sessions/developing-RESTful-android-apps.html# I'm left confused the design patterns described here feel overly
complex, perhaps because I just "don't get it" yet.
I come from a java, spring, web and desktop application background. Thinking and designing in terms of a handheld device is quite new to me. (What happens when the screen layout is changed? What happens when the phone rings while I'm running a sync?) Taking 2 steps back, if the initial sync IS going to be such a long running process, is there a better way for me to think about the problem->solution, the user experience, the user expectations of an application running on a phone?
Would love to hear from some more experienced android developers out there who have already wrestled with these questions.

In my opinion this is the most tricky/hard part of a mainstream/average Android development. For instance on BlackBerry this is IN TIMES easier.
Definitely you need to use a Service.
AsyncTask does not suit, because it is tightly "bound" to your Activity via a Context handle (otherwise you would not be able to update UI of the Activity from your AsyncTask). However an Activity can be killed by OS once the Activity went in background. An example reason of going to background can be an incoming call - user switches to Phone application so your Activity becomes invisible. In this case (depending on the current RAM state) OS may decide to kill one of the background (invisible to the user) activities.
Some devs workaround this by arranging a static stuff for having a long-running actions inside of. Some recommend to use Application instance. This is because static stuff and Application exist while the whole app process exists. However those are incorrect workarounds. Processes in Android are also may be killed when OS decides it is time to. Android OS have its own considerations about what it can kill and in what order. All processes are devided to 5 levels of "killability". Here is the doc where those levels are specified. It is interesting to read there:
Because a process running a service is
ranked higher than one with background
activities, an activity that initiates
a long-running operation might do well
to start a service for that operation,
rather than simply spawn a thread —
particularly if the operation will
likely outlast the activity. Examples
of this are playing music in the
background and uploading a picture
taken by the camera to a web site.
Using a service guarantees that the
operation will have at least "service
process" priority, regardless of what
happens to the activity.
Your Activity where users initiate a long-running action should show a ProgressDialog to make sure user does not do anything else while the action is running. The guide is here.
Also, you'd most likely want to use the NotificationManager for notifying the user about your long-running action completion (or failure) if your Activity is currently invisible. Here is the NotificationManager info to start from.

There are multiple considerations that you must weigh in order to best decide how to approach your situation. It sounds like you need a good comparison between the two approaches... So here is a list of similarities, and differences and additional considerations that must be taken into account when working on a handheld device.
A Service is a part of your Application that has no UI. It may be called by a UI(Activity) to be started, or may be started by any other component of your Application. When developing, you have the freedom to place it on a different thread, or even run it in a different Task or Process. This allows you to ultimately separate it from your UI. Additionally, you may start the Service to run independently (startService) or bind your activity to it (bindService) depending upon your needs. By using custom Handlers, you can set callbacks to update the UI with your progress. A Service does not necessarily end if a User changes Activities, but may be ended at ANY time by the OS.
A AsyncTask is always instantiated from the UI thread. It only allows specific callbacks, but simplifies the process of multi-threading for the purposes of relatively short transactions (as compared to dedicated separate threaded services) that are inherently tied to actions performed by an Activity. Whenever a User changes Activities, the AsyncTask is put on "pause" and may even die because there is no UI thread for your Activity any longer.
The thing that I would be most concerned about is if the app is going to take 10-20 minutes the first time, I would ASSUME that the User will either change tasks temporarily or set the phone down until it completes (which can cause all of the same complications if the phone sleeps). Given this consideration, a threaded service bound to your activity may be your best choice. To protect your UI, I would make a Progress Dialog for your Activity that receives your progress callbacks. This limits user input in YOUR app and allows your service to continue the way that it needs to. Then override the Activity onResume to check the status of your Service and if it is running. Then you can reset the Dialog immediately.
Given that this is my preferred method, I would also take into account that the OS may kill the App at any time anyway. So make sure to have some way to detect an incomplete or partial sync. Then you may resume automatically when your Activity or Service restarts.

With AsyncTask if the user goes to another Activity you can't transfer that object to the other Activity so it dies. There are tricks you can play when say the user rotates the screen or something like that, but that doesn't extend to general purpose destruction. AsyncTask can randomly die.
Google Sync is run as a Service in the background because syncing can take a while to complete. You might need to follow their path and create your own sync service that you can communicate with. Here is some thoughts how to accomplish that:
http://mylifewithandroid.blogspot.com/2008/01/about-binders.html
You can definitely communicate between Service and Activity, but it's tricky to do it right.

The choice is mainly dependent on the app design. Since both AsyncTask and IntentService stands their ground, what you may want from the app(user experience) is more important and then choose either or both. Some scenarios are mentioned below (mostly what I experienced while developing apps)
Assume apps that have feeds pages - where more than one api calls are made to make the page presentable ( /getFriends, /getDates, /getPictures etc.) you can warp all such api calls to a single AsyncTask with executor which is multithreaded and the sequence of execution doesn't matter. In contrast to IntentService which runs all calls in sequence in a single worker thread. For a high end device with multi-core the call from AsyncTask is more effective. And if you start the AsyncTask on UI thread then updating IU is a piece of cakes(read less boiler plate code). And even if an user leaves the page, with intelligent use of not holding on to the context the app doesn't crash.
Assuming you are trying to write an app which doesn't need the user to be on view/activity/fragment and the total execution time to show something is not mission critical (assume sync service or user notification/alarm) then IntentService is a better choice. (no hassle to start Asynctask on UI thread so that you don't need to write a Handler to force changes on UI etc. etc. and less boiler plate code)
From my experience - write small app for both and compare the pros and cons to get a better idea. (p.s I'd suggest take a look at the iosched app from google to get a better idea - they use both Asynctask and IntentService)

I tend to prefer the IntentService + BroadcastReceiver combo because they give you a really strong degree of control
You definitely have to make sure the UI is running if you are updating something on the screen. ASyncTask crashes were at once reported to be one of the top causes of Android crashes. This can be avoided by keeping some sort of "activityIsAlive" variable and skipping or delaying a UI update if the activity is dead.
The IntentService + BroadcastReceiver combo is a little more resistant to the crash because most tutorials tell you to shut off the BroadcastReceiver onPause or onStop. If you do not do this, again you'll have to turn off the UI update. There's a runOnUiThread command somewhere that will help you do UI updates.
The IntentService + BroadcastReceiver combo is also more extensible. You can create functions and extend BroadcastReceiver to make a more elegant REST processing solution. However, it does require more plumbing vs an ASyncTask
If you do delay the UI update, you may be able to rig it on OnWindowFocusChangedListener. When that function receives true, it means that the UI is alive.
tldr; Make sure the Activity and/or Fragment is alive before updating the UI if you are running something in the background
2015 Edit: check out Loaders as well. A little harder to grasp because there's a lot going on behind the scenes