In the last year I have taken over two existing projects, each of which was structured very differently.
Project A had one Activity, and then each area of functionality was contained as a Fragment within that activity. The areas of functionality were not related - there were the usual type of screens such as account, settings, help, etc. Overall there were probably around 25 fragments. The fragment management code was rather complex and tricky to debug.
Project B had one Activity per each Fragment. It was a complex project with many areas of functionality and the manifest listed almost 30 activities.
I was wondering which was the 'correct' solution? What are the pros and cons of each? If I were starting a new project from scratch which model should I follow?
There really is no "correct" solution. Whichever architecture makes the most sense to you is probably the one that you should choose for your projects.
Think of Activities as a collection of zero or more Fragments, and Fragments as a way to separate pieces of an Activity into smaller logical or functional pieces. From there, decide how you personally want to organize these pieces and go with it.
Dianne Hackborn and Adam Powell addressed this question at the 2014 Google I/O Android Fireside Chat as well, and I think they did a good job of explaining how the two are just different levels of abstraction for the same concepts.
Related
I've noticed that several sources encourage developers to only use a single activity in their projects. When would it be appropriate to have more than 1 activity in a project? Is there a limit to the number of composables an activity can have? 1 concern I have is for a large project requiring multiple screens, this can lead to heaps of code which eventually will become time consuming and difficult to scroll through and find.
It is not a particularly bad practice to make your app multi-activity-embedded, but the thing is -- In most of the cases, you do not need it. The users do not know what an activity is, since they simply look at the app in terms of the screens that the app offers. Therein lies the explanation. A single Composable can represent an entire screen super-easily, it's barely an inconvenience.
HENCE, the entire idea and need of multiple activities gets destroyed. Single activity apps are more efficient too, since there's only one activity so you do not have to explicitly handle the data-flow between various activities. This means a single ViewModel, minimal coupling, high code-readability, and easy data-flow.
This is the same reason that fragments are discouraged too. They often involve multiple viewModels which complicates things. When a Composable can accomplish everything on its own, it automatically becomes the best choice for developers to use to build screens. I would highly recommend, no matter the size of your project, that you stick to a single activity.
I can understand your viewpoint as well, and I have something to help.
The Navigation Codelab clearly and simply explains the Navigation System in Compose, which is a framework that basically allows you to create multiple screen-representing (or other) Composables, and then navigate to and from them from anywhere IN THE OS! It is actually super-easy to use, barely an inconvenience.
I've developed an android phone app in which the navigation is mostly activities and starting activities for results. I've read that in order to make the tablet layout look like 2 screens of my phone app one next to the other I should have made it with fragments. Is there another way to migrate my functionality to the tablet app? Meaning to keep the start activity for result but just concatenate two activities on screen? (it may sound stupid, I know). Thanks
In order to keep the software design simple and modular, fragments come in really handy. You can use the same fragment's UI design + working code in multiple places without changing much functionality.
Since you have the code built and running in terms of activities, it won't take much time to migrate/port it to a Fragment since the life cycle methods are pretty similar. All you need to do is study the life cycle of a Fragment and move code chunks from the Activity to the Fragment class.
You can study all about Fragments here - http://developer.android.com/guide/components/fragments.html
or maybe a training session here will help you more -
http://developer.android.com/training/basics/fragments/index.html
You will learn a lot and once you have tried it you will be able to comprehend the advantages in a much better way. In future always make it a point to design in terms of Fragments to have a much modular design.
Along with that I think you will also need to learn to design layout for multiple screen sizes. This link over here will help you understand how to support multiple screen sizes -
http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html
If a tutorial to do this very quickly is what you seek then this should help -
http://www.101apps.co.za/index.php/articles/converting-android-activities-to-fragments.html
All the best :)
It very depends on your app GUI structure. Sometimes, you even not need to adapt your GUI for tablet (if you build interface dynamically basing on screen dimension). As rule, if you have two screens where one screen is advanced or logical extension of other then you can union it into one screen on tablets for better informativeness. Secondary way, as rule, based on fragments.
You can achieve it with help of Activity group but it is deprecated in Api level 13, for more details please visit http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/ActivityGroup.html, but I will suggest to go with Fragment as Fragment having nearly similar life cycle like as Activity with extra methods and features. Please refer link for more details http://developer.android.com/guide/components/fragments.html
I have read the documentation and some other questions' threads about this topic and I don't really feel convinced; I don't see clearly the limits of use of this technique.
Fragments are now seen as a Best Practice; every Activity should be basically a support for one or more Fragments and not call a layout directly.
Fragments are created in order to:
allow the Activity to use many fragments, to change between them, to reuse these units... ==> the Fragment is totally dependent to the Context of an activity , so if I need something generic that I can reuse and handle in many Activities, I can create my own custom layouts or Views ... I will not care about this additional Complexity Developing Layer that fragments would add.
a better handling to different resolution ==> OK for tablets/phones in case of long process that we can show two (or more) fragments in the same Activity in Tablets, and one by one in phones. But why would I use fragments always ?
handling callbacks to navigate between Fragments (i.e: if the user is Logged-in I show a fragment else I show another fragment). ===> Just try to see how many bugs facebook SDK Log-in have because of this, to understand that it is really (?) ...
considering that an Android Application is based on Activities... Adding another life cycles in the Activity would be better to design an Application... I mean the modules, the scenarios, the data management and the connectivity would be better designed, in that way. ===> This is an answer of someone who's used to see the Android SDK and Android Framework with a Fragments vision. I don't think it's wrong, but I am not sure it will give good results... And it is really abstract...
====> Why would I complicate my life, coding more, in using them always? else, why is it a best practice if it's just a tool for some cases? what are these cases?
I am sorry if I wrote too much, and thanks for your time. I hope I will get your attention, because I really need ideas and experiences about this topic.
Best regards, Ahmed
You shouldn't always use fragments. Fragments have their uses, such as when you want to page in and out parts of the screen or when you want to drastically change the UI in different orientations. When they make sense, use them. When they don't, skip them. I find they make sense in maybe about 10-20% of apps- I rarely see the need.
If there's a certain positive aspect apart from the simpler reuse of logic through different layouts, it's the ability of Fragments to be kept alive by the system at orientation change, aka while an Activity is reconstructed from zero, a Fragment can retain its instance, and therefore using them is more stable than an Activity. Also, switching between Fragments is quicker.
Personally, if I don't need to mess around with different orientations and layout sizes, I still prefer using Fragments and a singular container Activity around it, for stability and seamless switching between the different screens.
Its quite a general question and not directly related to a specific programming problem. But in my opinion good software is based on good design and therefore a good understanding and best practices. So your question is a good one for stackoverflow.
So, what about fragments. It took me a while to understand why you could or even should use them. As #pskink said, you can easily live without them. But if you are planning to rollout your software on different devices, you should definately think about fragments.
The screen resolution and density is not the only problem. Think about a smartphone. The screen is much smaller, so you can not present your app the same way as you can on a tablet. For instance a master detail flow. Left side, a list of elements and when you click one element, you will see details of that element on the right side. Easy to do on a tablet. But on a smartphone you would put the master-view into one fragment and the detail-view into another one.
You got two options to realize that scenario. Either programm different activities for smartphone and tablet but because they are actually doing the same logic, it's better practice to put the logic into fragments and reuse those fragments in two layouts (phone/tablet).
My doubt here is how to achieve a clean and easy code to maintain over time in an Android app?, I'm trying to apply Uncle bob - clean code rules but as I keep going with development sometimes some rules must be broken, and I end with an Activity of 700 lines (I'm not using Fragment, and 700 lines seems to be a Class that "does too much things") so I want to know if someone has try an Android app with proper use of Fragment and could answer these questions:
1- does it really impact on Activity lines length (at least less than 300-500 [not strictly this numbers but a "reasonable" Class length] lines)?
2- does code keep clean and easy over the time?, not necessary with Uncle bob rules but considering best practice in OO while coding.
3- does it have a considerable impact in terms of "Performance"?
4- does Fragment help to support in a more simple way a wide fan of Screens?"
5- ignoring developer skills, what "should" be the way to go non-Fragment activities or activities with rich Fragment use?
Note: this is not an attemp of Duplication to Android - Activity vs FragmentActivity? since the topic here is not about tab format but best practice for android development.
sorry for my english ;).
You are conflating the use of fragments with the use of FragmentActivity.
FragmentActivity is a subclass of Activity designed for use with the backport of fragments from the Android Support package. You usually only use FragmentActivity if you are using the backport. If you are using fragments, but your android:minSdkVersion is set to 11 or higher, you can usually skip FragmentActivity.
With that in mind:
does it really impact on Activity lines length (at least less than 300 lines)?
That is impossible to say. It is equivalent to asking whether a Restaurant that subclasses Business will be longer or shorter than a Restaurant that subclasses FoodSupplier. It all depends on your code.
That being said, it is certainly possible that the use of fragments will reduce the lines of code in the activity. IMHO, that's not a good reason to use fragments.
does code keep clean and easy over the time?, not necessary with Uncle bob rules but considering best practice in OO while coding.
That is impossible to say. It is equivalent to asking whether a Restaurant that subclasses Business will be "clean and easy" compared to a Restaurant that subclasses FoodSupplier. It all depends on your code.
does it have a considerable impact in terms of "Performance"?
Not usually.
does Fragment help to support in a more simple way a wide fan of Screens?"
If by "wide fan of screens", you mean "a wide range of screen sizes", then yes, fragments can help with that. In fact, that's the #1 reason for using fragments, IMHO. However, fragments alone do not magically help with screen sizes, any more than having capital letters in method names magically helps with screen sizes.
ignoring developer skills, what "should" be the way to go FragmentActivity or Activity?
As stated previously, you usually only use FragmentActivity if you are using the backport of fragments. If you are using fragments, but your android:minSdkVersion is set to 11 or higher, you can usually skip FragmentActivity.
If your question really is "should I be using fragments in my app?", the answer is "probably, but it depends upon the app".
Yes, fragments are the way to go. They help spread your code around in a logical way so you don't have a 700 line activity, they keep your code easy because each fragment will have its own class usually, and they do, to answer your 4th question, make it easy to have "A wide fan of Screens".
I recommend this video to help get you started. For any beginners, this video is a great explanation of how to use fragments ( I know because I had a hard time figuring out how to use them until I watched this video). It is called "Programming Android with Fragments" by Andrew Ruffolo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyXvq_kwfzg
This video demonstrates the power of fragments. You still need a main activity of some kind, but this main activity acts kind of like a container for the fragments, and most of the functionality of your app is handled by the fragments and their corresponding classes.
I have never used activities because I started app development after fragments were added to android, but it seems like fragments help break down your app in the same way that methods and inner classes help break down your classes, and the same way that classes help break down a project or program. I am not sure if this was possible or as simple using only activities before fragments were added.
In an Android app, I have two screens* the user sees, one for preparing a query and the other for displaying the results. The right UI here is to have the query preparation in one screen, and then see the result on the second screen. Since this app is aimed at phone users, there's no need to display the two at once.
The traditional Android way is to use two activities, a QueryPreparationActivity and a DisplayResultActivity, and switch between the two. However, I've been hearing more and more about how the Android UI is switching to fragments. I can implement the two screens as two fragments and have the activity switch them, but is it worth the trouble? I will essentially be reproducing the Activity management code Android already has.
Is there a reason to use two fragments here?
*I'm using the term screen, because it isn't necessarily an activity...
Personally, I always develop using Fragments.
But the best reason I can give you for using Fragments is when you develop for handset and tablet devices you get a lot of reusability.
I know you already mentioned that there is no need to show both screens at once. But say later you were to develop the same "screen" for a tablet device and realize that the preparation screen is too barren and want to have both queryprep and display result show at the same time, you would have to write a totally new 3rd activity.
If you used fragments, you would reuse your 1 activity and 2 fragments, and that activity should be coded smart enough to determine the size of the screen and show the proper layout.
Code Reusability & Flexibility are the buzz words here.
If you have any questions please leave a comment and I will expand my answer. If you like my answer, please upvote and accept.
Fragments were introduced encapsulate UI elements and related behaviour into a single, reusable module. Before fragments you had to re-write the much of the same code that 2 or more activities had in common especially if you couldn't find a good approach to abstract the UI/control code into a super class. This was further complicated by the limitations that activities only call setContentView once. So sharing some code between activities wasn't all that nice.
Now, to answer your question, it all depends on you. If you think that further down the road you could use the QueryPreparation or DisplayResult ui as a module (layout and logic behind it) then go for the fragment implementation. It could be a different layout for landscape view on phone or if you decide to support smaller tablets like the nexus 7. If you are sure that it will never happen then stick with activities. Personally, I use fragments everywhere and they are a sure way to "future proof" your implementation for reuse down the road.
In short Fragments were introduced to accommodate the emergence of tablet/large screen devices and allow developers to create applications that will run across a wide range of screen sizes with very little change to code.
More can be read here at the Android Blog. That blog also details some of the finer technical details for the reasons for the move toward Fragments. Also introduced at Goolge IO 2012 were DialogFragments which you should consider using instead of Dialogs. Another blog post here describes them.
You're better off getting used to using Fragments and DialogFragments from the get go as this is the way Android is moving. Only use individual Activities if you really really need to do a quick-and-dirty app for say testing purposes. Fragments, in my opinion, do require a bit more code-work to incorporate and to initially get your head round but it's worth the effort.