Firstly, I know that with Model View Presenter there are different implementations, and in my mind as long as you have the layers of abstraction clearly defined and doing their appointed roles then how you implement this pattern is open to interpretation. I have been implementing this pattern in quite a few apps where there was just one Activity. I've now started a new project that has multiple Activities and attached Fragments, including nested fragments (ViewPager).
I'm now trying to translate the MVP to this project and I've hit a concept wall and would like some guidance and insights.
So far I've created the above structure and started to do a 1 : 1 relationship with View & Presenter (regardless of Activity or Fragment). I feel that this is OK, however if for example I sent a request to do something from an Activity View to its Presenter, which returns a result to the Activity View how would I go about propagating the result i.e. update all the other Activities/Fragments that are currently not in a Paused() or Stop() state. I feel like in this case there should be a central Presenter that updates all necessary Activity and Fragment Views, but I'm not sure how to go about doing this.
Currently when each Activity and Fragment is created it creates a new instance of a Presenter class, passing in itself as a reference (the Activities and Fragments implement their own interfaces), which the presenter stores as a WeakReference and can invoke the relevant interface methods when returning a result.
According to the docs whenever Fragments want to communicate with one another and the attached Activity you should use a callback interface. With this in mind should I have one callback interface that the Activity implements and the Fragments callback to whenever they request something, so in essence only the Activity would have a Presenter and Model layer that the Fragments have to callback to in order to make various requests?
Sorry if this sounds a bit muddled, hopefully this is clear enough to understand what I want to achieve, and if I’m thinking along the right lines... or totally off the mark!
I think this is okay to have a presenter inside activity. Basically activity is like a controller, it should know about the presenter.
It would be wrong to put a presenter inside a fragment if activity or other fragment needs it too. You can put a presenter inside a fragment only if this presenter is designed specifically for fragment.
which the presenter stores as a WeakReference and can invoke the relevant interface methods when returning a result
Why do you need a WeakReference here? If you have 1:1 relationship then I assume your presenter does not have it's own lifecycle, meaning that it's lifecycle depends on either activity or fragment. There is no risk of having memory leaks because it's not a singleton, right? It should be safe to have a strong reference.
I'm not sure if I answered your question because it looks a bit broad to me. My point is that, fragments are just separated "parts" of activity and you should treat them as parts. If presenter belongs to this part only, then it should be inside. Otherwise it should be in activity. You are right about using an interface to access activity, this is a well-known design approach which Google uses in their examples.
Nope, no interface anymore. You either use RxJava Observables to update all the views as described here or some kind of Bus(Otto-deprecated or EventBus). And you will like it because they make interacting too easy.
Related
I am working on a small application using MVP pattern. My home activity has viewpager with multiple fragments in it and each fragment has its own presenter. Fragments aren't communicating with each other so the activity doesn't have any logic, it is just initializing fragments on start.
So if I would like to implement the pattern by the book and stay true to its principals should I implement presenter also for the activity? And if so what should be its role?
If you want to implement MVP by the book and stay true to its principals, every UI that has user interaction should have a presenter. In this case, if your activity is not interacting with the user, there is no need to have a presenter, and your fragments can have their own. If your activity needs, let's say show a loading to the user because of some data loading prior to show the fragments (this is a user interaction because you are interacting with the user to let them know that something is happening so they should wait), then might be good to consider having a presenter for the activity.
MVP doesn't care at all about whether is an Activity/Fragment/View, it just knows View which is considered as an abstraction of whatever can be shown to the user :)
That is at least, from the 'rules' perspective. My 2 cents is, be flexible, if you see that it actually ends up adding value to you and your project, do it, otherwise, sometimes you have to 'break' the rules or create your own.
For using the fragments with their own presenters, I try to use the presenter-contract classes duo to manage the UI events in the fragments.
For example, Consider a click event to show a toast message in case of two possible outcomes: 1. Save and 2. Delete
Then, I will declare two view contract methods like this:
interface View{
fun showSaveMessage()
fun showDeleteMessage()
}
And then, in the fragment, I will use an instance of my presenter class to display the messages at appropriate times like: presenter.doSaveAction(), the presenter in turn will cause the view to show the toast message.
Also, when I come to the actual logic of the fragment, like for fetching some data from a remote server, I use Interactor class along with the Presenter-View classes to perform it.
I believe staying true to all the principles is virtually dependent on what kind of application you are building. Sometimes, it is more feasible to use MVVM with MVP than only MVP pattern for the app architecture too.
I hope this answers your question, kind of?
I have read, and try to implement mvp pattern on Android for a while.. However, I never find an example that show activity's presenter, and fragment's presenter at the same time?
As both Activity and Fragment consider as view. And view is control by presenter.
Sometime activity is do nothing just for host fragment, but sometime it does many things such as contain many fragments and receive all input info from them and finally call restful service for save all data.
QUESTION
Since most of the time activity is just for host the fragment, does it really need to have presenter?
If not, when activity need to call rest api, how should they do. (according to map pettern)
If yes, don't you feel it's too overhead for create extra classes. Because most of the time, activity is for hosting fragment. Also, I really want to know how you guy name the class...
For example, currently I have AbcActivity.class, AbcFragment.class, AbcPresenter.class(For fragment), AbcContract.class (Contain view, presenter interface)... what next ?? AbcActivityPresenter ??
Sorry, for long typing, i'm ask from stack exchange app.
I have create a blog post about MVP
http://www.nonvoid.com/model-view-presenter/
Yes,
The activity needs the presenter.
The fragment does not have a
presenter.
The presenter tells the activity what to display but
doesn't care about the implementation details.
There could be one, many or no fragments in an activity. The presenter doesn't care.
You'll see from my blog post that the "over head" is negligible compared to the added maintainability. The REST API calls should be encapsulated in the presenter.
The Android Developer Documentation states that one should avoid direct communication between fragments by implementing an interface. On further searching, the reason that I found for this is that it causes tight-coupling between the fragments. I'm having some difficulty understanding why it causes tight coupling and why that might be a problem.
Could someone show, by example code:
How direct communication between fragments would work.
Why this approach would be problematic
How using interfaces would solve the aforementioned problem.
Android fragments are often thought of as Views in MVP or MVC patterns, they should not contain any application logic within. All meaningful events from the fragment should be delegated to presenters which are often implemented via Activity.
Suppose you have a fragment A and a fragment B. Fragment A displays a list of items and fragment B displays details for the selected item. If you communicated fragments directly it would create a tight coupling between them since fragment A would need a concrete fragment B reference in order to instantiate it. If your application requirements change, for instance by showing fragment C instead of B, the tight coupling will pop out and you would have to deal with it. You can avoid this coupling by introducing a Presenter or Controller interface into your fragment. By calling this interface methods you can be sure that the implementation of your presenter logic is decoupled from fragment appearance logic.
For more information about developing decoupled application architecture check out this article http://fernandocejas.com/2014/09/03/architecting-android-the-clean-way/
I am creating my app with using fragments. I have something like main activity, it has FrameLayout as root layout to hold fragments.
After much thought I have decided to separate my application logic in several parts, for example : MainActivity is responsible for app basic navigation (MainPageFragment, CategoryListFragment, ProductListFragment, ProductDescriptionFragment), AuthActivity is responsible for autherization, registration (SignInFragment, RegistrationFragment, RecoverPasswordFragment).
A little about my app. If you have recommendation or don't agree with app structure, I would be grateful for any critics.
What is the problem, as you can see my MainActivity has many responsibilities. There are four Fragments now but it can be more in the future.
Lets consider next situation. In my MainActivity I have MainPageFragment and this fragment in turn of course has some views. And on click event I need to change fragment, for instance from MainPageFragment to the CategoryListFragment. In this case I have several ways to handle clicks or other events from framgents.
The most common way is to have activity implements callback interface defined in fragment class as nested class inteface. This approach is quite good and easy to use. But what if my host activity has to handle multiple callbacks from fragments, to say more, there can be more than one callback from single fragment, class(activity) declaration starts growing, class body too. What are another possible approaches to solve this problem.
You can handle all clicks, events directly inside fragment (start activity, replace framgent......) you can do this painless, but for me personally callback approach looks better, but maybe there is nothing bad, and I can use this approach.
Use one or several interfaces for getting information from fragments. For example create class CallbackEvent for holding such info as framgentId, eventType .... Using this approach we can reduce interfaces and methods, but Activity class body can become larger in first approach.
Use something like EventBus pattern to communicate between app components via third party service.
Of course there are some other ways to do this, but I have described most popular.
Please suggest, or just explain how to do you solve this problem in your apps, what approach is better, how to built this communication easy to maintain.
I am grateful for any advice,critics in advance.
If your app becomes more complex using the callback pattern will get messy, especially if fragments need to communicate with fragments. I'd only use that pattern for apps with low complexity (activity, one or two fragments).
Clicks, events etc. should be handled inside a fragment if whatever happens stays within the fragment. Don't replace a fragment from within the fragment, that's the Activity's responsibility. It might look easier to just do a getActivity().someMethod in the fragment but this leads to hard to maintain code. You might understand now what it's doing but will struggle in half a year.
This approach looks messy to me too (similar to 1.)
That's the one I'd recommend. I'm using EventBus (https://github.com/greenrobot/EventBus) but there are alternative implementations like Otto (https://github.com/square/otto) and I've never looked back to the times when I used the callback pattern. Using an EventBus decouples the communication between the different components and your code becomes much simpler and leaner. However you need to be careful with that approach since there are some pitfalls. One is that it gets much easier to communicate from any component to any other component which could lead to even messier code than the listener/observer pattern. Another one is that events are asynchronous compared to synchronous listener calls so you need to make sure you're only receiving the "right" events at the right moment in the component's lifecycle. The main advantages of an EventBus approach are IMO:
A message is always an object forcing the developer to code object oriented compared to the more functional listener method calls
It decouples the different components. Publisher and subscribers don't have to know about each other. Decoupling the components will make your code much leaner and easier to read (and maintain).
It can be used by arbitrary components. E.g. I replaced all LocalBroadcastManager calls by EventBus messages (EventBus is MUCH faster that using a LocalBroadcastManager). Being able to communicate between arbitrary components is especially convenient if the components can't access each other directly (like a Dialog and a Preference object)
I have two rules of Fragment - Activity separation.
One is logic. Anything that deals with View (layout expansion, display, listeners, etc) should go inside a Fragment. Important background processes (http requests, file reading, image processing, etc) should go inside Activity. Part of the reason is explained in my second point:
Lifecycle. Activity's lifecycle outlasts Fragment's. Fragment is also fragile it doesn't even retain its views. And this is the reason Fragment should be decoupled from Activity. Listeners and callbacks are tight coupling and they are the cause of countless null pointer exceptions when some process tries to update a View of a Fragment that has called its onDestroyView. Having said this I'd suggest Publisher - Subscriber pattern like Event Bus where you can plan a message delivery in which it gets digested only when a publisher (which in this case corresponds to Fragment's view) is available.
The numerous click listeners you have are related to how you design your UI. Moving code around doesn't really help much, unless you trim down your layouts.
Lets say I will be using several fragments(Action1Fragment, Action2Fragment etc.) within an activity(ActionActivity). I want to access some elements of activity object, or call some methods of ActionActivity. It is generally offered to create a event callback . What if I keep a reference to ActionActivity within Action1Fragment instead of keeping a reference to CallBackInterface which is actually implemented by ActionActivity since I will be using these fragments only within a particular activity.
I am kinda confused by the idea that Activity might be dead while reference of interface might still be alive(it sounds ridiculous when I read it again but it is OK if I managed to explain myself).
The Android Developer tutorials recommend that you use a callback interface on your fragments. The activity that hosts the fragment must implement the callback interface. The fragment does getActivity() and casts it to the callback interface, and then makes the callback.
This is the recommended way to promote a more modular design. It would not matter if your fragments will only ever work inside one activity. But if you want to make more generic fragments that could be used by different activities, then the above design pattern starts to become useful. (For example: a telephones fragment inside an person fragment and a company fragment.)
Suppose you do it the other way: the fragment does getActivity() and casts it to PersonActivity. The fragment then has access to all the public methods of PersonActivity. But this design pattern becomes much more ugly when you need the other activity to also use the fragment. The fragment would then have to be changed to first try and cast to PersonActivity, and if that throws, try the CompanyActivity.
The recommended design pattern basically gives you a way to make an activity compatible with the fragment instead of vice versa. The fragment only knows about the callback interface and not about any of the activities itself. The activities do know about the fragment because they implement the callback interface but they already knew about it because they constructed and initialized an instance of it.
Does that make sense?