Develop Reference

Do I need to stop periodic GcmTaskServices?

I'm trying to implement a PeriodicTask with the GcmNetworkManager API (existing since Google Play Services 7.5).
My task is scheduled as soon as my app starts and will check the content of a Queue of objects in order to send them as batches to my server.
If the queue is empty, the method onRunTask() will do pretty much nothing (it will check the queue and return GcmNetworkManager.RESULT_SUCCESS).
I have put some logs in the implementation and noticed that the PeriodicTask keeps running forever, even after my app is in background or removed from memory.
This made me worry about my users' battery. Even though I won't perform any heavy task or HTTP request, the process is started periodically without real need.
At first, I thought GcmNetworkManager would be smart to exponentially back-off my Task until it stopped (or maybe I'm doing something wrong that prevents that), but, as my logs showed, that did not happen.
Afterwards, I have tried using cancelTask() and cancelAll() but those do not work if called from within the Task's onRunTask() method itself. Even calling stopSelf() is not a good idea since GcmNetworkManager is the one responsible for the Service lifecycle so I do not want to get in the way.
The difficulty of actually finishing the task made me think if that is the right approach (maybe I should just let the Task live forever?).
How can I use PeriodicTask properly while not draining the user's battery?

First of all, do you really need periodic task execution? It sounds like you can register OneoffTask with updateCurrent whenever you update your Queue. In case of upload failure, you can use RESULT_RESCHEDULE to retry later (and Google Play service will employ exponential back off strategy to decide when to retry).
I don't know your requirement, so you may really need PeriodicTask. If so, you don't have to worry too much about battery. The idea of GcmNetworkManager is that, you let Google Play service handle task execution, so it can execute multiple tasks together.
Phone will consume battery when it changes its state from inactive to active (see e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3ry8PxcJJA) so as long as your job is executed in batch with other tasks and finishes your job immediately, you don't waste much power. You can configure executionWindow to encourage batching.

Android Services and UI update

I started learning android i've been playing with it and so far so good but i have some doubts about Services, i started learning them today so by gently if a say something very wrong.
For example, i want my app to grab some information over the internet from time to time, this polling period is defined by the user, then the UI gets updated. I though about creating a Service that run lets says every 30 minutes, gets the information and updates the UI.
If i get it right:
An IntentService just executes an operation and stops by itself sending the result through an intent(right?), so i think it's not what i want.
A Bounded Service is most likely used when you want IPC or allow binding from external apps, which again i think it's not what i want.
I think a Local Service is probably what i need, using a LocalBroadcastReceiver to update the UI, how can i make it to run the operation every X minutes( Handler postDelayed, ScheduledExecutorService or Alarm Manager ? )
If i understand it right a Service if not bounded can run infinitely if it's not killed due to low memory problems, making it a foreground Service is the safest ?
Last thing and it's kind of a noob doubt, if the user leaves the application(Click Home Button or opens other app) the app is still in background but the activities are in "Paused" or "Stopped" mode will the Service still be able to talk to them ?
Sorry for long post and thank you.

Your requirement : after every x minutes, start a service, pull some date, update UI.
Solution :
Define or set an alarm for every x minutes, to trigger a receiver.
From receiver start the service.
In the service, start an async task to fetch the data in doInBackGround().
Once data is fetched, from onPostExecute() send a broadcast to your activity.
In the activity have a dynamic receiver registered for broadcast sent from service.
From dynamic broadcast receiver update UI.

From what you've explained I wouldn't personally use a service.
The Android docs on services explain more but here is a snippet:
http://developer.android.com/guide/components/services.html
A Service is an application component that can perform long-running operations in the background and does not provide a user interface.
You could perhaps looks at using an AsyncTask, especially given that you only want it to run whilst the app is running:
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/AsyncTask.html
This class allows to perform background operations and publish results on the UI thread without having to manipulate threads and/or handlers.
There is a good answer here on how to run an AsyncTask repeatedly at specific time intervals: How to execute Async task repeatedly after fixed time intervals

Is it better to use AsyncTask (Or Timer) within single process, or using Service in separate process?

I just read Android Architecture Tutorial: Developing an App with a Background Service (using IPC). It is basically
Have a service run in separate process.
A repeated timer event will occur in the service.
Within the timer event handler, it will perform networking to retrieve tweet, and inform all the listener attached to it. Listeners are attached to it through IPC.
I can see there are 2 major characteristics with this approach.
Tweet retrieving action run within separate process.
It always run, even the main activity has quit.
However, if "It always run" is not my requirement. I want everything to stop when I quit my main Activity.
Will it be better, if I use AsyncTask (Or Timer) within my main Activity, to perform tweet retrieving action? Everything will be run within single process. No more using Service.
Using AsyncTask (Or Timer), seems simpler. We no longer need to deal with IPC.
Or, using Service approach might be better? Am I missing some goodies provided by Service?

Using service is a better approach as it will allow you to perform the polling independent from the application flow.
As it is a task where no user interaction is required and it has to be done in the background without disturbing the main UI of application and whatever the user is doing, a service is an ideal candidate for its implementation.
It is possible to bind the service with the application in such a way that when the main application terminates, it will also turn off the service.

I would take the view that a TimerTask can be set to execute and repeat at a given interval, Timers run on a separate thread so all this work would occur in the background without disturbing the UI. It would be easy for you to trigger an update within your app when the TimerTask completes and update the UI when you want.
When you exit the app it's a simple case of calling cancel() on your Timer and the purging all the tasks with purge().
Nice and easy and you don't need to implement IPC, which can be very fiddly to get right.
EDIT
Using AsyncTask you can do pretty much exactly the same thing but you'll have to manually schedule the next run. I have used both solutions in the past and found them to work equally well so it's all down to your preference.

At first you have to know, that a service isn't a Thread. If a activity binds a Service and runs as a Deamon, but a ASynchTask is another thread.
ASynchTask's are designed for doing some work which should not running on UI-Thread (for example processing some larger calculations)
Services are designed to run permanantly on Background.
If you want to permanantly check for new tweets, even if your activity is stopped or paused, you should use a Service, which checks into an own thread for new data.
TimerTask are good old java style implementations which run on their own thread.
You can used them for processing some data, but you'll have some problems to manipulation UI. If you want to be it on propper "AndroidWay", use a Handler instead of TimerTask.

First of all, I know the tutorial you are following...I've followed that tutorial myself while trying to learn IPC. One thing you need to know is, The Android docs explicitly say,
Note: Using AIDL is necessary only if you allow clients from different applications to access your service for IPC and want to handle multithreading in your service.
If at all possible, you should just bind to the service.
Also, you must consider, do you really need a service? Consider that the Android Twitter app doesn't even refresh tweets for you, its on an as needed basis. Polling can be battery intensive, so you must consider if this is really necessary.
Also, will you be using these tweets from multiple activities? If so it would be nice to not duplicate the code in multiple places. So maybe you do want a service in this case.
Other than that, I would recommend that you start simple (Async task with a timer to update it), and move to a service if you think you need it.

Getting Things Done In Activities Using Async Tasks Vs. Calling Service

When something asynchronous needs to be done it is often recommended to put this in a service, maybe an intent service. Great. However, it is also not recommended to startup an activity from a service ... So when asynchronous response comes back inside the service perhaps the user is on a different screen. Then their is the whole aspect of binding to services ... One is left wondering which way is better and why? I mean services are cool but there is the binding to service call and there is also the issue that services should not have callbacks into activities. So which way is better. What is the criteria for using an AsyncTask vs. a Service to do async work? Also there is requestForResult() option too ...

The criterias are basically,
Do you need to update some data regularly or continue some task (android gives an example of a music player where the music continues even when no activities are visible) even when your application activities no longer run? Use service here.
Do you have a need where your data or some task needs to be run by multiple applications? In such case the applications need to bind to your service and access the info.
Do you have a case there is IPC involved? Use a service.
Do you have a case where all u need to do is do a heavy task like downloading data, some kick ass algorithm which takes time? Do all heavy tasks in a background thread and update the UI once completed. use an AsyncTask.
Asynctask is simple. Used mostly in your activities to do heavy tasks in a separate thread to avoid ANR.
Services on the other hand is used to do tasks which needs to run even when your app is not running, other app needs to bind to update data, you need the updated data before displaying your activity.
I am sure there are more criterias, but these are just a few that just came to me.

Android: AsyncTask vs Service

Why do I read in the answer to most questions here a lot about AsyncTask and Loaders but nothing about Services? Are Services just not known very well or are they deprecated or have some bad attributes or something? What are the differences?
(By the way, I know that there are other threads about it, but none really states clear differences that help a developer to easily decide if he is better off using the one or the other for an actual problem.)

In some cases it is possible to accomplish the same task with either an AsyncTask or a Service however usually one is better suited to a task than the other.
AsyncTasks are designed for once-off time-consuming tasks that cannot be run of the UI thread. A common example is fetching/processing data when a button is pressed.
Services are designed to be continually running in the background. In the example above of fetching data when a button is pressed, you could start a service, let it fetch the data, and then stop it, but this is inefficient. It is far faster to use an AsyncTask that will run once, return the data, and be done.
If you need to be continually doing something in the background, though, a Service is your best bet. Examples of this include playing music, continually checking for new data, etc.
Also, as Sherif already said, services do not necessarily run off of the UI thread.
For the most part, Services are for when you want to run code even when your application's Activity isn't open. AsyncTasks are designed to make executing code off of the UI thread incredibly simple.

Services are completely different: Services are not threads!
Your Activity binds to a service and the service contains some functions that when called, blocks the calling thread. Your service might be used to change temperature from Celsius to Degrees. Any activity that binds can get this service.
However AsyncTask is a Thread that does some work in the background and at the same time has the ability to report results back to the calling thread.
Just a thought: A service may have a AsyncTask object!

Service is one of the components of the Android framework, which does not require UI to execute, which mean even when the app is not actively used by the user, you can perform some operation with service. That doesn't mean service will run in a separate thread, but it runs in main thread and operation can be performed in a separate thread when needed.
Examples usages are playing music in background, syncing data with server in backgroud without user interaction etc
AsyncTask on other hand is used for UI blocking tasks to be performed on a separate thread. It is same like creating a new thread and doing the task when all the tasks of creating and maintaining the threads and send back result to main thread are taken care by the AsyncTask
Example usage are fetching data from server, CRUD operations on content resolver etc

Service and asynctasks are almost doing the same thing,almost.using service or a asynctask depends on what is your requirement is.
as a example if you want to load data to a listview from a server after hitting some button or changing screen you better go with a asynctask.it runs parallel with main ui thread (runs in background).for run asynctack activity or your app should on main UI thread.after exit from the app there is no asynctask.
But services are not like that, once you start a service it can run after you exit from the app, unless you are stop the service.like i said it depends on your requirement.if you want to keep checking data receiving or check network state continuously you better go with service.
happy coding.

In few cases, you can achieve same functionality using both. Unlike Async Task, service has it's own life cycle and inherits Context (Service is more robust than an Async Task). Service can run even if you have exited the app. If you want to do something even after app closing and also need the context variable, you will go for Service.
Example: If you want to play a music and you don't want to pause if user leaves the app, you will definitely go for Service.

Comparison of a local, in-process, base class Service✱ to an AsyncTask:
✱ (This answer does not address exported services, or any service that runs in a process different from that of the client, since the expected use cases differ substantially from those of an AsyncTask. Also, in the interest of brevity, the nature of certain specialized Service subclasses (e.g., IntentService, JobService) will be ignored here.)
Process Lifetime
A Service represents, to the OS, "an application's desire to perform a longer-running operation while not interacting with the user" [ref].
While you have a Service running, Android understands that you don't want your process to be killed. This is also true whenever you have an Activity onscreen, and it is especially true when you are running a foreground service. (When all your application components go away, Android thinks, "Oh, now is a good time to kill this app, so I can free up resources".)
Also, depending on the last return value from Service.onCreate(), Android can attempt to "revive" apps/services that were killed due to resource pressure [ref].
AsyncTasks don't do any of that. It doesn't matter how many background threads you have running, or how hard they are working: Android will not keep your app alive just because your app is using the CPU. It has to have some way of knowing that your app still has work to do; that's why Services are registered with the OS, and AsyncTasks aren't.
Multithreading
AsyncTasks are all about creating a background thread on which to do work, and then presenting the result of that work to the UI thread in a threadsafe manner.
Each new AsyncTask execution generally results in more concurrency (more threads), subject to the limitations of the AsyncTasks's thread-pool [ref].
Service methods, on the other hand, are always invoked on the UI thread [ref]. This applies to onCreate(), onStartCommand(), onDestroy(), onServiceConnected(), etc. So, in some sense, Services don't "run" in the background. Once they start up (onCreate()), they just kinda "sit" there -- until it's time to clean up, execute an onStartCommand(), etc.
In other words, adding additional Services does not result in more concurrency. Service methods are not a good place to do large amounts of work, because they run on the UI thread.
Of course, you can extend Service, add your own methods, and call them from any thread you want. But if you do that, the responsibility for thread safety lies with you -- not the framework.
If you want to add a background thread (or some other sort of worker) to your Service, you are free to do so. You could start a background thread/AsyncTask in Service.onCreate(), for example. But not all use cases require this. For example:
You may wish to keep a Service running so you can continue getting location updates in the "background" (meaning, without necessarily having any Activities onscreen).
Or, you may want to keep your app alive just so you can keep an "implicit" BroadcastReceiver registered on a long-term basis (after API 26, you can't always do this via the manifest, so you have to register at runtime instead [ref]).
Neither of these use cases require a great deal of CPU activity; they just require that the app not be killed.
As Workers
Services are not task-oriented. They are not set up to "perform a task" and "deliver a result", like AsyncTasks are. Services do not solve any thread-safety problems (notwithstanding the fact that all methods execute on a single thread). AsyncTasks, on the other hand, handle that complexity for you.
Note that AsyncTask is slated for deprecation. But that doesn't mean your should replace your AsyncTasks with Services! (If you have learned anything from this answer, that much should be clear.)
TL;DR
Services are mostly there to "exist". They are like an off-screen Activity, providing a reason for the app to stay alive, while other components take care of doing the "work". AsyncTasks do "work", but they will not, in and of themselves, keep a process alive.