When starting a new application for a client, I am asking myself again the same question about who should be responsible for loading data: activities or fragments. I have taken both options for various apps and I was wondering which pattern is best according to you in terms of:
limiting the code complexity.
handling edge cases (like screen rotation, screen going power save, loss of connectivity, etc.)
Option 1 - Activity loads data & fragment only displays it
This allows to have fragments that are just fed a bunch of objects to display. They know nothing about loading data and how we load that.
On the other side, the activity loads data using whichever method is required (for instance initially the latest 50 entries and on a search, loads the search result). It then passes it to the fragment which displays it. Method to load the data could be anything (from service, from DB, ... fragments only know about POJOs)
It's kind of a MVC architecture where the activity is the controller and fragments are the view.
Option 2 - Activity arranges fragments & fragments are responsible to fetch the data
In this pattern, fragments are autonomous pieces of application. They know how to load the data they are displaying and how to show it to the user.
Activities are simply a way to arrange fragments on screen and to coordinate transitions between application activities.
In theory you can do whatever you want, if it works.
Actually, the fragments and activities display data and deal with their own life cycles.
Since fragments belongs to activity so you have to use both in conjunction to better handle all the data but mostly it depends on your needs.
If you keep in mind the idea that the Fragment should provide the UI and the Activity should provide the processing then you have a good division of concerns and code which should allow the Fragment or the Activity to be reused.
If you know about the MVC - Model View Controller - design pattern then you can think of the Fragment as the View and the Activity as the Model.
Things get much more interesting when you build an application with multiple Fragments.
Some key points as a decide factor -
The idea of a Fragment is that it is a wrapped up chunk of UI that
can be used by any Activity that needs it. On this basis you have to
ask yourself if the event that has to be handled is the same for
every Activity or unique to each Activity. If it is the same then the
event handler is better written within the Fragment.
The Fragment doesn't have a UI of its own - it is displayed by an
Activity that the Fragment is associated with. The events are
generated by objects in the View hierarchy, which is owned by the
Activity. If you try to use Android Studio to add an event handler,
for example, it will add it to the Activity and not to the Fragment.
You can define the EventListener that you want to handle the event
in the Fragment and then hook it up to the View object in the
Activity in which you want to generate the event.
A Fragment is a class that implements the onCreateView method to
supply a View hierarchy that can be displayed by an Activity.
To use a Fragment in an Activity you have to add it using a
FragmentManager and a FragmentTransaction. You can add the Fragment
using the add method but nothing happens until you call the commit
method.
After the method that used the commit, usually the Activity's
onCreate, terminates the CreateView event runs the Fragment's
onCreateView and the Fragments View hierarchy is added to the
Activity's content.
You have to write code to save and restore any additional state the
Fragment may have.
If a task is common to all instances of the Fragment then its code
should live in the Fragment.
In particular the code to handle events can be defined within the
Fragment.
The Activity should be used to host code that processes the data
provided by the UI.
Attaching Activity event handlers to the Fragment's UI or is
difficult to do correctly.
From scenarios make decision what your app will be. Is it service,
activity, widget , even a content provider or a complex system,
including some different components. Test your decision against
scenarios.
All of these have to work after the Fragment has been destroyed and
recreated.
(1) Initialization of the Fragment, (2) Saving and restoring the Fragment's
state and (3) Implementing something like an event mechanism so the Fragment
can get the Activity's attention
The hardest part is implementing something like an event mechanism.
In the case of the complex system, distribute functionalities and
data entities among application components. Make a list of components
and what they are (activities or smth else).
Make the list of UI components with description what they do (not HOW
yet) These will be widgets and activities or fragments or layouts
later.
Often you will want one Fragment to communicate with another, for example
to change the content based on a user event. All Fragment-to-Fragment
communication is done through the associated Activity. Two Fragments
should never communicate directly.
When your app is perfectly modular, fragments don't know about each
other. You can add a fragment, remove a fragment, replace a fragment,
and they should all work fine, because they are all independent, and
the activity has full control over the configuration.
You can't do anything with a Fragment unless you start a transaction.
Within the transaction you can set up what you want to happen,
usually add the Fragment to the current layout, but nothing happens
until you use the commit method.
Efficient handling of data with Screen Orientation -
When screen orientation changes, Android restarts the running Activity (onDestroy() is called, followed by onCreate()).
To properly handle a restart, it is important that your activity restores its previous state through the normal Activity lifecycle, in which Android calls onSaveInstanceState() before it destroys your activity so that you can save data about the application state. You can then restore the state during onCreate() or onRestoreInstanceState().
However, you might encounter a situation in which restarting your application and restoring significant amounts of data can be costly and create a poor user experience. In such a situation, you have two other options:
1) Retain an object during a configuration change
Allow your activity to restart when a configuration changes, but carry a stateful Object to the new instance of your activity.
2) Handle the configuration change yourself
Prevent the system from restarting your activity during certain configuration changes, but receive a callback when the configurations do change, so that you can manually update your activity as necessary.
What I would do is manage all data flow (bluetooth, database storage, etc)
in the Activity and use Fragments only for UI display or handling user input.
This way is easier to handle configuration changes/ screen rotations.
Also, if data flow things are heavy to be on UI thread, consider using a Service with a background thread.
If it is a "one shot" thing, you can use an IntentService,
otherwise you can implement a Bind Service and request a bind from anywhere you have Context.
For more read - fragment-and-activity-working-together.
Ideally neither Activity nor Fragment with UI should contain any "model" logic - these classes should be lightweight and responsible only for UI logic. But when you decide to make a separate model object you have a dilemma to choose where to initialise and store this object and how to deal with configuration changes. And here comes some handy trick:
You can create a model Fragment without UI, make it retain instance to deal with configuration changes (it's AFAIK the simplest way to save data across config. changes without troubles) and retrieve it anywhere you need via findFragmentById(). You make all expensive operations inside it once (using background thread, of course), store your data and you're done.
For more info, see Adding a fragment without a UI section.
UPD: There's now a better way to deal with configuration changes: ViewModel from Google's Architecture Components. Here's a good example.
I prefer and always implemented Option-2 over Option-1.
Reasons for not selecting Option-1:
We should have listeners for events triggered in Fragments and pass it back to activity to load data, process it and push it back to fragment, which makes work more complex.
An Activty can load any number of Fragments, Typically you end up questioning these questions to yourself in a scenario where your app is highly scalable and is already huge. Writing all the events in an activity and passing it over to fragment will be an complex altogether.
As #Ved Prakash mentioned, Handling screen orientation becomes complex if orientation is handled by Activty.
I have an example:
your application have 2 features A and B. the 2 features are independent each other. and each feature has a lot of screen.
you should create 2 activities A and B because when Activity A is used, Activity B should be released to reduce memory of app. And the same when B is used, A should be released. The memory of Context A and B are independent, if you want to send data from Activity A to B you must use intent or use global variable in Application Context. intent is managed by OS, not by application. When A send intent to B, if A is destroy is no problem with intent send to B. Activity is App module, it is can call by other applications (fragment is impossible).
for example: feature A has a lot of screen (ex: Fragment1, Fragment2). they use the same data and depend on each other. each screen should be a fragment. and when process with data you can get reference to data by calling function getActivity() and then get reference to variable of Activity context (or Activity memory) to write or read it. Fragment1 and Fragment2 are belong to Activity A Context.it means that Fragment 1 and Fragment 2 can transfer data with each other via variable of Activity context, it is easy to do . noticed that Intent is managed by OS,it is so expensive when send data via Intent.
Related
What is the best practice to notify all the fragments that are in backstack on some change?
I try to use EventBus and every Fragment subscribe to the event, then when change is happening the main activity send post event to all the subscribers.
Only onDestroy I Unsubscribe the destroyed fragment.
I don't like this solution because if there are many fragments in backstack, it can be heavy + lots of listeners simultany.
my application, has infinity drill down, from one fragment you replace to other (and add to backstack) and you can replace again (and add to backstack) and so on..., with no end.
A possible solution is to put some data into shared preferences and read it in fragment onResume.
Or you could put that informations in other parts, like configuration servers or external service
Obviously if these fragments belong all to the same activity you can put informations into your activity, then you can read it from that attached activity.
For remote fetched data
You may put your data into a singleton class only responsible to keep data. Keep in mind that in android a singleton could be destroyed in some limit cases, so when your fragment come back in foreground check if the singleton is empty and eventually repeat your fetch call
You can see an example here
Fragment transaction has method add(Fragment fragment, String tag), which does not place fragment to container, so it cannot have view. For what it can be used?
From the Android Documentation:
However, a fragment is not required to be a part of the activity layout; you may also use a fragment without its own UI as an invisible worker for the activity.
How about this purpose ?
Simple example: an Activity starts an AsyncTask, but when device rotated activity restarts, causing AsyncTask to lose connection with the UI Thread. But this Activity can hold a Fragment (invisible, with no UI at all) that can handle all the AsyncTask work. When Activity recreated the Android OS takes care reattaching the Fragment, thus no data loss will occur.
For Dialogs you don't have any container on normal app layer. It is directly added on Window with WindowManager(See WindowManager.LayoutParams for various types of layers).
DialogFragment has an API like DialogFragment.html#show(android.app.FragmentManager, java.lang.String) which corresponds to this.
You can use fragments without UI (container) as a background worker (one benefit is that you can retain it during rotations etc) and for retaining data during rotations and other changes.
Reading http://developer.android.com/guide/components/fragments.html is strongly recommended.
Example of instance retaining: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/development/+/master/samples/ApiDemos/src/com/example/android/apis/app/FragmentRetainInstance.java
Also, here are similar questions (so this questions seems to be a duplicated but cannot be flagged due to bounty):
What is the use case for a Fragment with no UI?
Android non-UI Fragment usage
As #Lucius Hipan mentions, it can be used to prevent data loss.
Almost always this king of fragments are used as Retained container ( setRetainInstance(true) called in onCreate method), then after device configuration changes (e.g. orientation changing) fragment will not be recreated but remembers previous state.
It's recommended way to use asynctask.
Here is an example:
There is login activity. The user enters their credentials and presses the Login button. After that configuration change occurs (user rotates phone). So, network task was completed, but your handlers was not listening for it now. If you show any login animation, it can be stored via savedInstance, but listeners not. And instead of creating service you can simply create new retained fragment with persistant asynctask and interface to communicate with activity.
This method is a good compromise for small projects where using bus libraries is overstatement.
By calling the method add(Fragment fragment, String tag) internally calls add(int containerId, Fragment fragment, String tag) with a 0 containerId.That will be add(0, fragment, tag).
If 0 is supplied as containerId, it will not be placed the fragment in a container.
First, I'd to state that I've been searching for a solution for this problem for three days now, that may means either I'm not asking the right question or not using a good approach. If any, please guide me in the right direction.
This is the scenario: I've an Activity and a bound Service. The Service holds some data and processes it as necessary while posting a persistent (ongoing) notification with some information. The Activity has three Fragments inside a ViewPager that displays the data processed by the Service.
The Fragments are a List Fragment, that shows the active data entries available, a Details Fragment that displays the details for each data and a Parameters Fragment where the user can modify how the data is processed.
[Service] <-> ([Activity] -> [ViewPager([List], [Details], [Parameters])])
Everything works just fine. My Activity binds to the Service, the ViewPager is created after and then the Fragments fetch information trough an Interface.
Here comes the fun part... Screen Rotation!
As the Service binds asynchronously, when the user rotates the screen the Fragments no longer have the data because the Activity is bounding the service while they're already present and not recreated thanks to the ViewPager.
I've been trying to figure this out but it seems that I don't have the knowledge to solve it. I've tried making static references to the fragments, setting them up before the service is rebound but I can't get a stable solution.
I'd be using android:configChanges in my manifest but there are different layouts for each orientation.
Again, if I'm using a bad approach, please, guide me!
Difficult to suggest when I don't know your code but thinking out loud....
Can you have a "worker fragment" that is never displayed (i.e headless) and has setRetainInstance(true) set so it does not lose any state you have set.
Your worker fragment would bind to the service instead of the activity and maintain a reference to it.
If you need to communicate with your Activity, you can do this with callbacks.
Your other fragments could communicate with the worker instead of the Activity.
This process would basically make the activity little more than a shell into which the rest of your components are hosted. Rotation would lose nothing because all data is held in the retained fragment.
During the screen rotation process the activity is completely destroyed and use of android:congfigChange is discouraged. but what you can do is you can override saveInstanceState(bundle) method in which you can save the data present in your activity at the time it is destroyed by the system in response to the screen rotation. and later receive it as the system passes the bundle to the activities onCreate(bundle) method or get it from the restoreInstanceState(Bundle) method.
The Android Developer Guide states that activities are launched via Intents:
Intent intent = new Intent(this, SignInActivity.class);
startActivity(intent);
For Fragments, the usual way to display it on the screen is as follows:
ExampleFragment fragment = new ExampleFragment();
fragmentTransaction.add(R.id.fragment_container, fragment);
fragmentTransaction.commit();
Why is it that in one case I have to specify a class, and in the other an object? I.e., I would like to use something like
Activity nextActivity = new SignInActivity();
Intent intent = new Intent(this, nextActivity);
startActivity(intent);
Because Activity lifecycle is managed by Android whereas Fragment lifecycle is tied to the Activity in which it is contained.
As mentioned, Activity lifecycle is managed by Android. This is required, among other things, for Android to manage the system resources and also to take care of the back stack.
Fragment, on the other hand, was introduced to modularize and better organize the UI for devices with different sizes. According the the documentation:
Starting with HONEYCOMB, Activity implementations can make use of the
Fragment class to better modularize their code, build more
sophisticated user interfaces for larger screens, and help scale their
application between small and large screens.
To answer the latter part of your question, you can indeed pass the results of an activity to a second activity. But you should never create an instance of an Activity class for that. The right way is to use the startActivityForResult() and send the resulting value to the destination activity through the Intent.
While adding fragment, you are already specifying where exactly to insert that fragment into. So, the ideal way is to,
Create your fragment.
Insert into a layout of your current activity.
Use transactions to remove/manage your fragments, added to the current activity.
In no way, you could launch or use just a fragment, without attaching it to an existing activity.
Android handles Activity life cycle by itself. Just look at the methods of Activity class, they're just like a fill in the blanks. Android calls the shots here. Through these methods it just ask if you want to do something when this activity is created, resumed, paused etc.
The reasons for Android handling activity life cycle internally, are many:
Properly setting up an Activity involves lots of boiler plate code, better let system do it for you. The whole Context and window management is set up for you behind the scenes. Imagine the amount of extra work, if you had to do it for every Activity you created.
Activities are shared, home screen and other applications might want to launch/use them. How would be this possible if they have to call new MyActivity() of some obscure package ? . This is why Activities and other externally invokable components must be declared in application manifest.
Activities from many applications can be parts of an android task ( a piece of work from user's perspective). And are automatically placed/removed/re-arranged on a back-stack. Again, its better Android manage their creation and destruction rather than developers messing with this whole setup.
All user cares is that an Activity must show up when asked for, and just get out of the way if user navigates somewhere else. Android enforces this. Making an Activity appear on its own, or refuse to go away, just because its allowed to be programmed that way, is unacceptable.
Now Fragments , on the other hand are internal. They live inside an Activity and are not accessed from or shared with outside applications or tasks in any way. Fragments are even not a part of application manifest and hence are not exposed outside. Android need not worry about each fragment separately, because fragment life-cycle is bound to that of its parent Activity. Android doesn't care what you do with fragments internally, it can just end the activity and everything inside it is destroyed as well.
Let's say I have a list of homogenous items which is likely to be changed in the lifetime of my Activity by user interaction or OS events. The Activity contains a FragmentPager which shows a number of ListFragments.
These fragments share the previously mentioned data but display it in different ways. E.g. they differ in sorting order or display only a subset of the data. Currently each fragment keeps a separate list containing the respective part of the data in the respective order.
When the data changes, basicly every fragment has to be updated. This means resorting or adding/removing items from some of the fragments. What is the best practice to keep the data in the different fragments consistent?
Currently I have some sort of an observer object, which is notified when something changes and subsequently notifies the connected fragments. But there are a couple of problems:
When the app just started, some of the fragments haven't been created by the FragmentPager, so notifying them is impossible.
When swiping through the fragments some of them get paused. In this state, they can't update their list. Should they disconnect from the observer in this case? This leads to:
When a change happens, while a fragment is disconnected, it basicly misses it.
And so on...
If I understood your ViewPager shows the same data (or it's portion) but in different views. So, I belive ViewPager shouldn't act in any way when data is changed, it's responsibility of Adapter.
About points below you said:
a) creating of fragments inside ViewPager can be managed by you. Just see javadoc of ViewPager::setOffscreenPageLimit(int limit) method.
b) I think you should do nothing with UI when data changed but fragment is in paused state. If you want to update do it in onResume(). Or better to set some field in DB (if you have) to "updates present" state and check it when Activity(Fragment) appears.
c) As in previous option - if fragment disconnected just ignore updates. Or if you really interested in that update use sticky BroadcastReciver (be carefull sticky BR is expensive thing)
You can keep your data in Application class, update only visible fragments when data has changed, and always ask for the new data in Fragment's onResume(), that'll do it
What I would do is have each ListFragment use a Loader to load its data. Then, instead of having the observer notify the Fragment (which might have been killed) to refresh its data, register an observer for each Loader so that it will know when the data source has changed, and will re-query when one has been detected. (If your data source is an SQLite database and you are using a ContentProvider, the CursorLoader will do all of this for you).
This is the implementation I would recommend because
Each Fragments behavior remains self-contained (i.e. each is a re-usable component that is not tied to any specific ViewPager or Activity).
It avoids the complexities of having to deal with potentially destroyed Fragments within your ViewPager.
If you need a quick fix, you could probably get away with forcing the Fragments to remain in memory using ViewPager#setOffScreenPageLimit(int limit) as Ivan suggests... however, this isn't as clean of a solution in my opinion.