I am very in doubt of the structuring of my application. When to use Fragments is a big question for me still. I understand the concept of fragment, but I would like to know how more experienced programmers use them. Is it really only when there is a specific task the fragment should do?
For instance, POP-UPs, what layout would be better used?
And back to the fragments, do you usually have a skelleton fragment that can be used for more than one thing, and then reshape it to different final forms (minor changes) or would you just use different fragments if the layout changes?
You should use fragments in a few situations but its going to depend on your app really.
If you have a layout that is going to be used in multiple places and the code is relatively the same, that is a very good candidate for a fragment so you can keep code down.
If you are making an app where the layout changes based on orientation or device type (tablet vs phone) then fragments are highly recommended to hold different layouts. It makes it easier to change or show multiple layouts if need be on a tablet.
I'm sure there are more scenarios but I would say these are the basics for fragment decision
The most common way I use them is as a kind of plugin layout for my activities. Let's say I have several activities and all of them need to display an address, phone number and some buttons (call number, launch navigation/gps, etc). I pass the fragment the id and the fragment does the legwork of grabbing the information and populating fields for my activities. This way, if I need to add anything, say an email address, I just need to modify one section of code rather than each activity and layout file.
Related
Android Studio 0.8.10
I have developed an App that has 3 fragments. I have just used 1 Activity and when I want to display a different fragment I just replace the existing fragment with the one I want to display. However, as I have 3 fragments now, and maybe more in the future, I think this will get harder to manage.
I am just wondering what is the design pattern when programming with multiple fragments, should each fragment have its own activity?
I will be scaling this to Tablets in the future, so I am not sure what impact this will have if I stick with the multiple fragments and single activity.
Many thanks for any suggestions,
should each fragment have its own activity?
Yes, but you can also use nested fragments.
I think this will get harder to manage.
you are right but
i think you must match your app with some other widget for example if you have multiple fragments that want to show one after the other use viewpager or you can use horizontalscrollview. you can create tabs and sync them by viewpager and so on.
Yeah, this can be really hard to figure out. I think a pretty good analogy, from the web application world, might be a servlet and a frame.
An Activity is like a servlet. It is one page in your app's workflow.
A Fragment, on the other hand, is like a block of content. It might appear in several different contexts and it might be served by several different servlets.
In MVC terms, the activity is largely part of the controller. A fragment, on the other hand, is more like a view include.
Much of the time, those two concepts align. A page in the workflow frequently contains exactly a single block of content. As you have, wisely, noticed, though, when you get more screen real estate (on a tablet), it is entirely possible that a single activity will display more than one fragment.
A single activity, on a tablet, might show, for instance, both a list of selectable items, and the details for the currently selected item in that list. When you have less space on the screen, though, those two things would be displayed as separate workflow items. Clicking on an item in the list invokes an entirely new activity.
The content is constant. The workflow changes.
Most modern applications will use a Fragment to display Activity content. It makes the application more flexible and easier to adapt to wildly different screens.
This is the image explaining the usage of fragments. The first image shows two fragments and two activities.
Lame doubt. Why use two activities when the sole concept of using fragments is err.. using fragments instead of switching activities.
Depending on your goals you can do it either way.
The method shown in the guide can be implemented entirely in XML layout files so it is a better method to teach to a new user of fragments.
The method you suggest requires the developer to manage fragment transactions in code, which is not too difficult, but why do it if your app does not have any special behavior that requires the extra work.
Also, since the animated transitions between fragments look different than activity transitions, your method will reveal the use of fragments at the user level. The method in the guide uses fragments as a modular programming technique that is transparent to the user.
You end up with an app that uses available space on all device types, but on a small device it acts just like a classic app that users already understand.
The idea is that when you have extra room (such as on a tablet), you can display the content from what would have been two activities side-by-side rather than as two separate activities.
Think about a mail application. On a phone, you fn really only fit the list of mail on a screen, and you click on one to open the content of that mail on another screen.
If you did that on a tablet, there's a huge amount of wasted space; you can display the list of mail on the left side of the screen, and the selected mail's contents on the right side.
Because the list UI is the same in both examples, and the mail-display UI is the same in both as well, you can reuse that UI by including them as fragments. The logic for those UIs is also self-contained in the corresponding Fragment classes.
This allows the user to see more content with fewer activity switches.
I'm currently developing a little application that uses a login screen and a main screen. I'd been watching how another developers had been made the screen switch, some developers adds and remove fragments on run time, anothers have an Activity for each view (in my case that will be a MainActivity with the main_activity layout, and the LoginActivity with the login_activity layout). And I don't know wich is the way to go. I think that have a fragment for each view will be the solution with more sense, but I want to listen some opinions before continue.
There might be others who disagree with me, but in my opinion, Fragments are better suited when you want to keep a part of the screen static and change something in the other part (analogous to AJAX in websites).
Activities should be used for individual views in those cases where there is only one thing happening on the application front-end.
On the other hand if you have a Gmail like layout (with static links to Inbox, Sent, etc. on the left hand side and a dynamic list of mails on the right hand side of the screen), Fragments is the answer.
But since you have two different screens for layout and main, in my opinion, it would be neat if you used different Activities for the layouts and used Intents to navigate around.
For two completely different Activitys such as Login and Main I think you want to use two different Layouts and two separate Activitys and no need for fragments. However, you may want to use fragments inside any of them as #swayam suggested depending on what you want to do inside of them. You need to look at the docs and decide which is better suited for your needs. No one can really decide that for you.
Activity
Fragments
As I've started to adopt Fragments more and better but also as Fragments functionality is increased (Fragments in Fragments, MapFragments) I'm starting to reach a point where I need to define when I should make a new View/Action as a Fragment or as an Activity?
An Activity is defined as:
An activity is a single, focused thing that the user can do.
But a Fragments have kinda taken that definition instead as described in the docs:
For example, a news application can use one fragment to show a list of
articles on the left and another fragment to display an article on the
right—both fragments appear in one activity
This is two things the user can do in one Activity with two Fragments.
So I'd like some input/help to figure out what is the best approach to decide if I should make a new action/view as a Fragment or as an Activity?
The answer depends on you and your development practices (or those of your company). However, my opinion is this: At a minimum, if you think the functionality being developed could be used within multiple Activities, or if it could ever be used in an Activity alongside another view (as on a tablet), then you should make it a Fragment.
We've recently adopted the philosophy of creating Fragments in all cases. Our Activities are now just top level coordinators, basically the glue that brings things together. This makes for a consistent and flexible architecture. This is important to us as we have numerous engineers at a couple of locations working on code.
An Activity is defined as: "An activity is a single, focused thing that the user can do"
That is more an issue of dated documentation than anything else. Activity has that same definition... when we are on a smaller screen size (e.g., phone). As you move up to larger screens, the odds of an activity being more complex than "a single, focused thing" increases.
So I'd like some input/help to figure out what is the best approach to decide if I should make a new action/view as a Fragment or as an Activity?
Here is my general heuristic:
If you anticipate that such-and-so piece of UI might exist standalone on a phone-sized screen, but be used in tandem with something else on a tablet-sized screen, make it a fragment.
If you anticipate that such-and-so piece of UI will always exist standalone, just create a simple activity.
If you anticipate that your ability to anticipate is not that good, err on the side of making more fragments. For example, you might say, "well, help will never need to be alongside anything else" and make it be an activity. Then, if you realize that other pieces of UI might benefit from the help being side-by-side with them rather than off on its own -- so the user can read the docs and perform the actions at the same time -- you will regret not having made help be a fragment, as you will have to do some re-work.
If such-and-so piece of UI would never exist standalone -- in other words, if it is more like a single widget than a full activity -- and you anticipate using it on multiple projects, make it be a single widget, in the form of a custom View or ViewGroup.
But, as jsmith indicates, there is no universal right or wrong answer. BTW, AFAIAC, jsmith's answer is the correct one here, but I was going to be way too wordy for a comment on his answer... :-)
I've been developing in Android since 1.5 so I have been developing from quite some time Activities and recently Fragments.
Quite frequently fragments left me with a sour taste in my mouth... an example was when I needed a kind of paginated Dashboard with buttons. For that I used a ViewPager + 1 fragment per button. I had all kind of problems because before Android 4.2 fragments couldn't be nested.
Another problem was the asynchronous mode of function of the fragments that when the needed to be moved from one place to the other quite rapidly it had all kind of misbehaviours.
Don't think that all was bad... in more simple cases, the use of fragments worked quite nicely.
So, in my opinion, whenever you have an area that is self-contained, that isn't moved frequently on the views, that can be reused in several screens and also you support tablets (or my in the future), use it.
If you need nested fragments, views that are re-arranged quite frequently, or code that will not be reused, don't.
This question already has answers here:
Dilemma: when to use Fragments vs Activities:
(17 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I often need the different parts of my applications to have their own special behavior and UI, and I don't know how fragments can help. In most cases, I think it is quicker to create 2 different activities (e.g., 1 for tablets and 1 for handsets), and to share the common behaviors and events in a third class.
So, keeping this in mind, why should I use fragments ?
Fragments are more of a UI benefit in my opinion. It's convenient for the user sometimes to see two different views of two different classes on the same screen. If, in your moment of creativity, you decide it would be nice to display your application with, say, a listView that takes up half the screen and a webView that takes up the other half - so that when you click on a list item in fragment A it passes an intent to the webView in fragment B, and suddenly you see what you just clicked without the app switching activities - then you could use a fragment. That's just an example I came up with off the top of my head.
Bottom line: Fragments are two or more activities on the screen at the same time.
The benefits I see when using fragments are:
Encapsulation of logic.
Better handle of the lifecycle of the fragment.
Reusable in other activities.
The drawbacks I see are:
More code(For example, instantiating a fragment manager, adding the fragment transaction, writing the callbacks of the fragment)
Communication between fragments and activities is harder. As #jonney said it, you would need to deal with a parcelable interface to serialize your objects you wish to pass.
So, when deciding to use a fragment, I would ask myself the following questions:
Is the lifecycle of the fragment different from the activity's lifecycle?
If the lifecycle is different, you get better handling of the lifecycle using a fragment. For example, if you want to destroy the fragment, but not the activity. Such is the case, when you have a pager adapter.
Is the fragment going to be used in several activities?
The user input events will be reusable if you use a fragment.
Is the amount of communication between the fragment and the activity small?
If you need to pass big objects to the fragment, you would need to deal with the code that serializes them. Also, if you need to communicate between fragment and activity, you would probably need to implement interfaces. This, in most cases, adds complexity to your codebase. It's not a difference maker, but a criteria to take into account.
Google advises you to ALWAYS use Fragments.
Why? It's simple:
In the simplest case, Fragments are used like containers of activities.
Why do you need this? Again, it's simple.
Android 4 (ICS) supports both Smartphones and Tablets. This means the SAME application will be running on a smartphone and a tablet and they are likely to be very different.
Tablets have big screens which will be empty or unused - unless you assign it properly.
That means- Putting two fragments on one activity like Contact List and Contact Info.
The smatphone will display contact List, and on a touch- display the contact's Info.
On a tablet, the user will still see the list and the info will be next to it.
2 fragments- on one screen....
Smart? yes... supposed to be back compatible down to Android 1.6......
#############################################################
O.K, Already Knew That? then - just try to understand the case solved:
A lot of things work that way- list & details, Menus and Sub-Menus, Info, Detailed Info and some more detailed info.
You want a way to keep it natural and smooth for a tablet which you expect to preform that way, but can't expect smartphone to display it all like the tablet did...
Get it?
for more Information, check out this.
I really think you just need to catch the concept....
Historically each screen in an Android app was implemented as a separate Activity. This creates a challenge in passing information between screens because the Android Intent mechanism does not allow passing a reference type (i.e. object) directly between Activities. Instead the object must be serialized or a globally accessible reference made available.
By making each screen a separate Fragment, this data passing headache is completely avoided. Fragments always exist within the context of a given Activity and can always access that Activity. By storing the information of interest within the Activity, the Fragment for each screen can simply access the object reference through the Activity.
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/244771/why-use-android-fragments
Fragment primary support more dynamic & Large UI Screen like Tablet.Because Tablet screen is much larger than normal Handset. There is more room to combine & Interchange UI Component.
Fragment allow such design without the need for such complex change in the View hierarchy.
By divide activity layout in fragment, we become able to modify activity's appearance at runtime