Develop Reference

Implementing two AsyncTaskLoaders in the same activity

I am a newbie, trying to execute 2 url queries on the same activity in Android.
I managed to get it done using two different AsyncTasks running in parallel.
Both url queries have separate classes and query classes - its two different websites with different data. However i wanted to display it on one screen - one activity.
I initiated both my Loaders with separate loaderIDs
private static final int LOCAL_LOADER_ID = 1;
private static final int GLOBAL_LOADER_ID = 2;
Then i initiated both the loaders . . . .
LoaderManager loaderManager = getLoaderManager();
loaderManager.initLoader(LOCAL_LOADER_ID, null, new LocalLoaderClass());
loaderManager.initLoader(GLOBAL_LOADER_ID, null, new GlobalLoaderClass());
and created the LoaderCallbacks for both of them, so this is an example of the first one one, the second one is the same:
private class GlobalLoaderClass implements
LoaderManager.LoaderCallbacks<GlobalData>
{
#Override
public Loader<GlobalData> onCreateLoader(int i, Bundle bundle) {
return new GlobalDataLoader(this, CMC_REQUEST_URL);
}
and so on . . . . . . with the remaining Override methods
However i keep getting an error on the method, i think i am missing something.
I have implemented the GlobalDataClass(Context, URL)

How do I abstract away dependencies in Android library code?

Here is my scenario.
I have an android activity in which I want to abstract my I/O dependencies. The dependencies are represented by this interface (edited for brevity and simplicity):
public interface ITimeDataServer {
TimeRecord[] get(int userID);
void save(TimeRecord record);
}
What I want is for my activity to be able to call these interface methods, and leave the implementation to be supplied by the calling code. (Pretty standard, I think).
ITimeDataServer myServer;
int myUserID;
void loadRecords() {
TimeRecord[] records = myServer.get(myUserID);
// etc...
}
My difficulty is, how can I ensure that myServer gets set?
This seems like a common problem, but I can't find a clean solution.
My first thought would be that myServer would be passed in through the constructor, but Android activities aren't really instantiated with constructors.
I've come up with several solutions, but they're all icky in some way:
Icky Solution 1
Create a static method to launch the activity class which takes an ITimeDataServer parameter and stores it in a static variable from which the activity can access it:
private static ITimeDataSource theDataSource;
public static void launch(Activity currentActivity, ITimeDataSource dataSource) {
theDataSource = dataSource;
Intent intent = new Intent(currentActivity, MainActivity.class);
currentActivity.startActivity(intent);
}
This is icky because (a) the data source is static and not actually associated with the instance, and (b) a consumer could initiate the activity by the standard activity API rather than this static method, which will cause NullPointerException.
Icky Solution 2
I can create a Provider class which provides a singleton instance of ITimeDataSource, which needs to be initialized by the calling library before use:
public class TimeDataSourceProvider {
private static ITimeDataSource myDataSource = null;
public void initialize(ITimeDataSource dataSource) {
myDataSource = dataSource;
}
public ITimeDataSource get() {
if (myDataSource == null)
throw new NullPointerException("TimeDataSourceProvider.initialize() must be called before .get() can be used.");
else
return myDataSource;
}
}
This seems a little less icky, but it's still a little icky because the activity's dependency is not obvious, and since there may be many paths to launch it, it's highly possible that some of them would forget to call TimeDataSourceProvider.initialize().
Icky solution 3
As a variation on #2, create a static IODependencyProvider class which must be initialized with ALL dependencies on app startup.
public class IODependencyProvider {
static ITimeDataSource myTimeData;
static IScheduleDataSource myScheduleData; // etc
public static void initialize(ITimeDataSource timeData, IScheduleDataSource scheduleData /* etc */) {
myTimeData = timeData;
myScheduleData = scheduleData;
//etc
}
public static ITimeDataSource getTimeData() {
if (myTimeData == null)
throw new NullPointerException("IODependencyProvider.initialize() must be called before the getX() methods can be used.");
else
return myTimeData;
}
// getScheduleData(), etc
}
This seems superior to #1 and #2 since a failure to initialize would be much harder to sneak by, but it also creates interdependencies among the data types that otherwise need not exist.
...and other icky variations on that theme.
The common themes that make these solutions crappy:
the need to use static fields to pass non-serializable information to an activity
the lack of ability to enforce initialization of those static fields (and subsequent haphazardness)
inability to clearly identify an activity's dependencies (due to reliance on statics)
What's a nooby Android developer to do?

As long as these dependencies implement Parcelable correctly, you should be able to add them to your intent, then unparcel them as ITimeDataServer and get the correct class.

I found a nice solution here, in the least-loved answer.
I define the library activity as abstract and with no default constructor, but a constructor that takes an interface, like so:
public abstract class TimeActivity extends AppCompatActivity {
private ITimeDataSource myTimeDataSource;
public TimeActivity(#NonNull ITimeDataSource dataSource) {
myTimeDataSource = dataSource;
}
#Override
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
setContentView(R.layout.activity_time);
// do stuff with myTimeDataSource!
}
}
Then, the calling code can create a concrete subclass with its chosen implementation that does have a parameterless constructor. No static members, easy-peasy!
This allows you to abstract and inject all sorts of crazy behaviours! Woooo!
(Note that the concrete subclass activity needs to be manually added to AndroidManifest.xml, like all activities, or the app will crash when it tries to launch.)

Why use TAG in most of the Android logging code

I can see this is common practice among Android developers.
public final class TasksSample extends ListActivity {
private static final String TAG = "TasksSample";
private void method() {
Log.i(TAG, "message");
}
}
Will it be easier, if I do it this way? I need not to declare TAG for every new class.
public final class TasksSample extends ListActivity {
private void method() {
Log.i(getClass().getName(), "message");
}
}

Rather than writing getClass().getName() at each place where a log is placed in a particular activity, it is always preferred to have a TAG that would represent the name of the activity class.
Why use TAG?
When you are running your application there might be more than one Activity class in it. To distinguish which activity class has logged the information in logcat we use a TAG which of course represents the name of the class.
And the proper way (I am not saying what you have written is wrong) of writing the TAG is:
private static final String TAG = TasksSample.class.getSimpleName(); // and not "TasksSample"

Every previous answer is right, but I just wanna add a little comment.
private static final String TAG = TasksSample.class.getSimpleName();
or
private static final String TAG = "TasksSample"
The latter is used when you use proguard. As you know, proguard obfuscates class names and it affects logs too.

calling a function every time has it's toll and getClass().getName() is calling 2 functions every time you log something into the system (an already long process).
Therefor, it's better to save the tag is a final static String instead of calling the same function over and over again.

Yes its a common practice, and is supported by Google for logging & debugging. If you use getClass().getName() then you have to call getClass().getName() every time, so its a better approach use TAG.
Actually getClass().getName() returns the class name, where TAG represents easy understandable name/identification of your class.

Android, Best way to provide app specific constants in a library project?

I am creating a library project for a number of android apps.
The apps all have some common functionality that I wish to include in the library project but the library project functions require use of application specific constants
So I am looking for a way to provide the library functions with the names of the constants and allow each app to define them
An example of a specific app constant and how it is used within the library project
public class AppConstants {
public static final long APP_ID = 6;//Needs to be set for each app
}
public static long getCurrentAppId(Context context) {
return getLongPreference(context, CURRENT_APP_ID_KEY, AppConstants.APP_ID);
}
This is just one example of approximately 60 constants that need to be defined for each app for a large number of library functions
Obviously I would normally just import/include the project specific app_constants.java file but this is not possible in the library project files as it hasn't got a clue about the specific applications (rightly so)
So what is the best way to have each specific app override the constants?
Update
I took a long time deciding on which of the superb answers I have been provided with best suited my needs (Thanks everyone) In the end I chose the xml solution. I don't particularly like it because it clutters up my apps resources and I did seriously consider using the interface solution but the xml solution does work nicely

Option #1
Extend your AppConstants class in each project
Better Option#2
Use XML resources to define the constants
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<resources>
<item type="integer" name="app_id" format="integer">6</item>
</resources>
then you can retrieve them by
Context.getResources().getInteger(R.integer.app_id);
add the xml file to your resources in each project with only the values you need different

I don't know of a great schema to do that but it would certainly work this way:
define some base class in your library
// class, enum or whatever you want it to be.
class BaseConstants {
// use some real singleton instead
public static final BaseConstants instance = new BaseConstants();
// define those values - sadly static inheritance does not work
private static final int APP_ID = 0;
private static final int CURRENT_APP_ID_KEY = 24;
// so we have to do that via methods
protected int getAppId() {
return APP_ID;
}
protected int getAppIdKey() {
return CURRENT_APP_ID_KEY;
}
}
let each Activity that wants something custom implement that
class App1Constants extends BaseConstants {
public static final App1Constants instance = new App1Constants();
private final static int APP_ID = 1;
// want a different APP_ID here.
protected int getAppId() {
return APP_ID;
}
// getAppIdKey not implemented here, uses default
}
Use that class as context to the constants for your library
class Library {
public static long getCurrentAppId(Context context, BaseConstants settings) {
return getLongPreference(context, settings.getAppIdKey(), settings.getAppId());
}
}
Activities would be like so
class myActivity extends Activity {
// each Activity can implement it's own constants class and overwrite only some values
private static final BaseConstants CONSTANTS = App1Constants.instance;
private void whatever() {
long appId = Library.getCurrentAppId(this, CONSTANTS);
}
}
class myActivity2 extends Activity {
// or could just use the default ones
private static final BaseConstants CONSTANTS = BaseConstants.instance;
private void whatever() {
long appId = Library.getCurrentAppId(this, CONSTANTS);
}
}
That schema is kind of ugly but it would work at least

Define them as enum's in your library project, like
public enum Planet { MERCURY, VENUS, MARS }
Android proper takes another approach, the dreaded constant interface, like,
interface Planets {
static final int MERCURY = 1;
static final int VENUS = 2;
...
}
However, this is a well-known Java anti-pattern (constant interface, and is covered in detail in Effective Java, I quote,
The constant interface pattern is a poor use of interfaces. That a
class uses some constants internally is an implementation detail.
Implementing a constant interface causes this implementation detail to
leak into the class’s exported API. It is of no consequence to the
users of a class that the class implements a constant interface. In
fact, it may even confuse them. Worse, it represents a commitment: if
in a future release the class is modified so that it no longer needs
to use the constants, it still must implement the interface to ensure
binary compatibility. If a nonfinal class implements a constant
interface, all of its subclasses will have their namespaces polluted
by the constants in the interface.
If you need the constants to have int values for some reason, and calling toString() on the enum isn't sufficient, you can give the enum's a extra information like,
public enum ZipCode {
LYNNWOOD(98036), SAN_JOSE(95112), ...;
private int zipCode;
private ZipCode(int zipCode) { this.zipCode = zipCode; }
public int getZipCode() { return zipCode; }
}
Note that enum's are slightly less performing than integer constants, but from a code organization and clarity perspective they are far superior.

Is there any convention for a helper class in Android?

For every Activity I add to my app I'm noticing a lot of similar code being used in the initialization of the Activity. A helper class with a static method to wrap this similar code seems the way to go.
I first thought of a singleton class. I could add static methods/variables and use them across the application. I haven't really tried to see how would this work in an Android application. Searching a little bit more I saw something about creating a class extending Application. For this I did a simple test:
public class MyApp extends Application {
public static String DEMOTEXT = "WORKING!";
public static void ShowToast(Context context, String text) {
Toast.makeText(context, text, Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
}
}
MyApp.ShowToast(this, MyApp.DEMOTEXT); // Placed on onCreate of some Activity
This works exactly as I expected. Is this the way to go on Android or is there a better convention? Anything else I should consider when doing this?
By the way, should I use the final keyword on the string? What about the method?
EDIT: I just read this:
There is normally no need to subclass Application. In most situation,
static singletons can provide the same functionality in a more modular
way. If your singleton needs a global context (for example to register
broadcast receivers), the function to retrieve it can be given a
Context which internally uses Context.getApplicationContext() when
first constructing the singleton.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Application.html
Should I use a singleton then?

Application is primarily used for a global application initialization. You would create your own class, override Application.onCreate() and initialize your static application data there.
Dont forget to declare it in the AndroidMainfest.xml:
<application
android:icon="#drawable/icon"
android:label="#string/app_name"
android:name="your.package.path.to.MyApp">
A static helper class is made the way you did.
The convention is to use lower case letter at first position, so MyApp.showToast(...).
You would use final for the String if you would want to avoid madifications on other places (since it should be a contant).
// this would allow ...
public static String DEMOTEXT = "WORKING!";
// ... to do this somewhere else
MyApp.DEMOTEXT = "NOT WORKING!"

I haven't tried this but I think you should be able to do something like this as well.
public class MyActivity extends Activity {
private static final String DEMOTEXT = "WORKING!";
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle bundle)
{
super.onCreate(bundle);
Toast.makeText(this, DEMOTEXT, Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
}
}
Now for all activities that need to use that initialization could just extend your base activity class.
public class SomeActivity extends MyActivity {
...
// Should display the toast on create
...
}

Yes just use a singleton. Well in this case if your methods are static, you don't even need a singleton. Just a class with static methods.