What's the best way to save any changes to global state, that would be lost if the process was killed due to low memory etc?
For activities we have onSaveInstanceState() which allows state to be saved when needed.
I would like something similar for global state. Our Application class holds a references to many objects that can be simply reloaded in onCreate() when the app next starts. But we also change the state of some of those objects, and require these changes to be maintained through the app being killed due to low memory etc.
We could of course persist every time changes are made to the objects in memory. But this would be very wasteful.
My current thought is to use onActivitySaveInstanceState() and keep a dirty flag to know only to call it once. But this adds complexity and probably isn't what this method was intended for.
This cannot be a particularly uncommon requirement, but most of the resources on the net focus on just Activity lifecycle. I'd be pleased to learn of a better approach.
There is no concept of Global State and I actually think that you don't need it at all. An app consists of several independent parts which have their own "state". Thus each part is responsible for its own state. For instance, a fragment which shows particular data knows where to get this data and what to do if there is no such data. An activity which shows user settings knows where to get user settings, how to update it and so on. Both of these parts know what to do when lifecycle methods are calling.
You can always store values in your Application class. On a high level, this is very simple, you create a custom MyCustomApplication, that extends the Android Application class. The Applicaiton class only lives, while the App is in scope (including when it's in the background, which is somewhat unpredictable in Android).
Then you would can access this using the getContext().getApplication()
The implementation details are more complex, and you really should extend the Applicaiton into a Singleton, as described in this SO post: Singletons vs. Application Context in Android?
Related
Considering this scenario: If I created an activity and it moves to the background and this activity contains a Fragment which is set to setRetainInstance(true) then the Android OS might at some point still decide to shut down the activity's hosting process in order to free memory.
Then the Activity's state is saved via onSaveInstanceState(Bundle) where - as far as I understood - the related Bundle is written and to the file system to survive the process shut down. (thus the requirement of objects in the bundle being Serializable). Later, the applications state can be retrieved in a new process via onRestoreInstanceState(Bundle).
In contrast, my Fragment is allowed to contain variables which are not necessarily Serializable. Therefore, I figured, the Fragment cannot be stored on disk like the Bundle is. So what happens to my fragment when the process gets killed?
I was wondering about this reading the developer's guide (http://developer.android.com/guide/components/processes-and-threads.html):
A process holding an activity that's not currently visible to the user
(the activity's onStop() method has been called). These processes have
no direct impact on the user experience, and the system can kill them
at any time to reclaim memory for a foreground, visible, or service
process. Usually there are many background processes running, so they
are kept in an LRU (least recently used) list to ensure that the
process with the activity that was most recently seen by the user is
the last to be killed. If an activity implements its lifecycle methods
correctly, and saves its current state, killing its process will not
have a visible effect on the user experience, because when the user
navigates back to the activity, the activity restores all of its
visible state.
I understood the above killing such that the VM instance is shut down and the state of the process is written to the file system (here comes the Bundle into play). Later the bundles are read for resuming the process. Since the retaining of fragments is not concerned with life cycle methods and since I would not know how to retain e.g. a pointer to a network connection (you should of course never have such a pointer in a fragment anyhow), I was wondering if the fragments are still restored if the process is shut down in the meantime. I concluded that they surely needed to be recreated and that the life cycle methods are therefore to be preferred over setRetainInstance(true) whenever possible.
Does this assumption make any sense?
Sounds like you're mixing up two concepts here.
Saving state across Configuration Changes does not involve serialization. If you request setRetainInstance() for a Fragment then that means it will fully stay in memory and not be re-created only for configuration changes. A similar mechanism is available for Activity objects but they need to explicitly define an Object which is going to be saved. This works via Activity.onRetainNonConfigurationInstance(), not via onSaveInstanceStae().
The other mechanism involves serialization and possibly (maybe not always, not sure) file system I/O to be able to reproduce state information even if an Activity/Fragment is destroyed (which happens independently of its hosting Process, btw). This works via Activity.onSaveInstanceState() and Fragment.onSaveInstanceState().
Of course, you can use the second mechanism for the purpose of the first, thus slowing down the way your app deals with configuration changes. Depending on your internal state, the slowdown could me marginal of significant.
Regarding your questions.
"My Fragment in contrast, is allowed to contain variables which are not serializable." Well, the same is true for your Activity. It can contain non-serializable objects which can be saved across config changes as described above.
"the fragment cannot be stored to disk when a process is shut down and must be recreated when an activity was restored." No, both mechanisms are available for both object types.
Hope I could contribute to clarifying this a bit.
Edit after your first comment.
Regarding the comment:
"onRetainNonConfigurationInstance is deprecated": Yes. I mentioned it for demonstration purposes because of a specific wording in your question. Also, with Android 2 devices having a 46% market share as per today (official Google figures), this method will definitely stay around for a very long time, deprecated or not.
"My main concern is about what will happen to the fragment instance when my hosting process is killed and removed from the memory": Your fragment instance will be removed from memory and there's of course no way it is restored as-is with its complete internal state automatically. This is only done when you setRetainInstanceState in the case of config changes. (But note that this relates to the Instance, in other words, the full object.)
Regarding your edit:
Once more, yes, your Fragment's Bundle will be stored and restored to/from the Bundle regardless of setRetainInstanceState if you use Fragment.onSaveInstanceState() for this purpose, for everything that makes sense.
It is not true that "all of its visible state" will be saved as the text you refer to claims; for example, the visibility attribute will not be saved. Whether that's supposed to be a bug or a feature I don't know, but it's a fact. But this is only a side remark; UI elements will save most of their relevant state.
"the state of the process is written to the file system": No! The state of objects which are able to save their state to a Bundle and actually implement saving their state will be saved in a Bundle, this means that you must provide such information yourself if you want your Fragment to save some state information. Also, again: No, this does not only relate to killing the process but also to deleting Activity and Fragment objects which are not visible; like the last Activity shown -- the Process may well stay alive.
"bundles are read for resuming the process": No, the Bundle will be read to pass it to the re-construction of Activity and/or Fragment objects, there is nothing done automatically in this process (except library objects which save their state also restore their state), but Android does not "resume" the "Process" from these Bundles.
"Since the retaining of fragments is not concerned with life cycle methods": Again, I think you're mixing up the two concepts. The "retaining" of a Fragment is only performed upon configuration changes _IF_ you request it via setRetainInstance, but we're mostly talking about the re-creation of Fragment objects from a Bundle here, which does involve the life cycle methods as documented by Google.
"I would not know how to retain e.g. a pointer to a network connection": Again, this must be a statement based on your mix-up. Of course you can keep a reference to a network connection upon config change (as requested per setRetainInstance) because when that happens, everything is simply kept in memory. Also, even if your Fragment gets deleted (because it became invisible) and your process is still there (because it shows the next Activity), you can (and should) keep references to objects which are expensive to re-create, such as a network connection, in your Application object, which exists as long as your process lives (more or less). It is only when your whole app is killed by Android that you lose everything, but the serialization we're discussing happens much more often.
Your conclusion:
I concluded that they surely needed to be recreated and that the life cycle methods are therefore to be preferred over setRetainInstance(true) whenever possible. Does this assumption make any sense?
Unfortunately not, since you are mixing up completely independent concepts.
I'll give it a final try:
You will want to keep a network connection reference which you need throughout your app in your Application object because it would be a lousy user experience if you created it from scratch on a regular basis throughout your app.
Your Application object will only die if Android kills your app.
Your Activity and Fragment objects will be deleted from your app regularly when the user moves forward within your app.
When the user presses "back", Android will re-create Activity and Fragment objects from Bundles using lifecycle methods. Saving something in a Bundle makes sense if you have expensive computations to do to re-create the internal state. You can live without the Bundle mechanism because Android will always save the Intent so if you don't do anything then you'll start without saved state.
When a configuration change occurs, Android lets you optimize user experience by keeping objects in memory across the config change. Here, Activity life cycle methods get involvwed and it's up to your implementation to use the saved data effectively. For Fragments, this is where setRetainInstance' comes into play: YourFragment` will survive the config change in memory if you set it.
I am considering using the android Application class as a place to store temporary state and common code shared by other (fragment) activities in the app.
I would like to get more feedback as to whether it is a good place for:
Shared constants like ID's, pref key names, etc.
Global variables (i.e. setters/getters) reflecting current UI state, navigation, selected fragment, and, in general, temporary data that does not need to be persisted.
Hooks for persisting data when certain conditions are triggered.
Updating the UI after preference changes.
Providing an easy way to access the context from anywhere in the app, including code where getApplication() is not available, e.g. via a static getter such as MyApp.getApp().
Common methods that need the visibility of the global state variables and which would become too cumbersome to move away to dedicated classes.
What else would be appropriate/useful/handy to have in the activity class? What would not be a good idea to keep in it and what would be the best alternatives? And finally, what you have found Application to be best used for in your apps?
Shared constants like ID's, pref key names, etc.
I generally create a constants file called C for this, as its better for readability. C.SHARED_PREFS is easier to understand that Application.SHARED_PREFS IMHO.
Global variables (i.e. setters/getters) reflecting current UI state,
navigation, selected fragment, and, in general, temporary data that
does not need to be persisted.
This would be better off in the Activity or component which it concerns (for example, the UI state of an Activity should probably stored in the icicle bundle, or within that instance of the Activity).
Hooks for persisting data when certain conditions are triggered.
This should be fine.
Updating the UI after preference changes.
Again, I feel this would be better off in the respective component.
Providing an easy way to access the context from anywhere in the app,
including code where getApplication() is not available, e.g. via a
static getter such as MyApp.getApp().
This would work, but be careful of memory leaks. You should generally pass the context in as a parameter when calling the method from an Activity or Service or whatever. Less chances of a memory leak.
Common methods that need the visibility of the global state variables
and which would become too cumbersome to move away to dedicated
classes.
I feel it would be better to make the effort of dedicated classes, as when your app grows in features and size, this will become difficult to maintain.
It is probably some place where certain hooks can be attached.
For instance, if you use ACRA crash reporting library, you just need to use the Application class, because this is where ACRA is attached. This is that forced me to start using this class; I never needed the one before.
I am developing an Android application consisting of over 10 activities. I have some state objects that I access in almost every activity and for this purpose these were implemented as global static variables in the MyApplication class.
I noticed that this approach is OK as long as the user is "in" the application. However, when he presses the home button and opens another apps and then goes back to my app through the "Recent activities" button, I see that the Android system resets the statics from the MyApplication so I have to deal with NullPointerExceptions. I know that this behaviour is caused by Android killing and recreating the application process.
I know that the best way to persist this kind of data is using SharedPreferences or SQLite, and I have no problem checking if MyState==null in the onCreate for and restoring it, but the problem is that I don't know when to properly store my state object (in prefs or database). I tried to override MyApplication's finalize() - no good, I saw that onLowMemory may not be called, I don't see how can I use onPause, OnStop and so on because I have so many activities that the serialization de-serialization would considerably slow down the app.
Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance!
It is better to not depend on the Application class unless you need to load some data, before anything else is started. Android can kill your process at any time to free resources, so your app should be able to handle this. Save all of your data in a snigleton class, and load it lazily -- check for null, and if so load on first access. It the state needs to be persistent, consider staving it file/shared prefs. If not, your app can probably live without it, so just make sure you check for null, etc.
Generally, you should persist state when activities become inactive -- onStop(), onPause(), but you can save as soon as it makes sense (e.g., the user has entered all required data). Spin off an AsyncTask to save data in the background and let the user continue their work.
Just wondering what is a better practice to pass information between activites, adding it to a bundle or using a singleton class to store and access this data. I have used both in the past for various android side projects, but I am now working on an android project that is of much larger scale, so would prefer to do things right towards the beginning.
My application authenticates users and then will have to do various queries based on it's id. To minimize coupling between activities, I would think just adding the id to the bundle, and then letting each activity query for the information that it needs, would be the best bet; however to increase responsiveness, I was leaning towards using a singleton class to store persistent information, preventing more queries than need be.
Personally, I would create an extension of Application to store the state of your app and share data between the different activities. The Application acts as the context for your whole app and Android guarantees there will always only be one instance across your app. Hence it works similar to defining your own Singleton, but using Application will allow Android to take control of the life cycle of your shared data and basically do the memory management for you.
Here are some more details. If you go down this path, you can simply add any getter/setter (or other) method to your application extension to store/retrieve data and do operations on it. Especially the latter can become quite a pain to manage (and keep consistent) when using Bundles passed back and forth between activities. If would only use a Bundle if the data is needed in just one or two places that are neighbours in the activity flow and does not need any (complex) operations to be run on it.
The better way to go for you is to use SharedPreferences to keep userId you need to keep and reuse. Of course you can use singleton approach or even Application class, but the data will be lost after application is killed.
The only time I pass data between Activities via bunlde is if it's something that I won't need to access for a while(i.e the the resID of a resource I want to use only once in the calling activity, etc). I would also think the difference in responsiveness would be very minimal, so that shouldn't be of concern. I suggest the singleton approach
Passing bundles is a tedious job. You'll have to pass a bundle for every change in activity to make sure that the value is not lost, even if you're not using the value in the called activity.
Singleton pattern have some bad results. For example:From Main activity you call secondary activity. Phone call interrupted your work.After ending phone call Android is trying to bring secondary activity to screen. Here is my nightmare - many users complaint about exceptions - Google reported to me NULL pointers in my singleton. So you have to provide not only singleton, but all data inside singleton have to be as singleton too. This maked come very complicated :(
It seems that there is a large amount of information about saving Activity state, but I have been unable to locate much on finding Application state.
I am looking for some design ideas to solve a problem I have run into. I am developing a game that has a fairly large data model (1-2 MBytes). This model exists outside of any Activity, in fact there are numerous activities that all interact with it. These activities are transient, coming and going all the time.
I currently keep a pointer to the data model in my application and all of the activities access the data model through it. I need to save that data model in the event that my application is being killed, but it is far too slow to save it every time an activity hits onPause, which happens very frequently as activities come and go.
What I need is a way to determine that my application (and along with it my data model) are being destroyed. I have searched extensively for this method or callback and have come up empty.
I would appreciate any suggestions.
I have been unable to locate much on finding Application state.
That's because there is no "Application state" in Android, any more than there is in a Web app.
but it is far too slow to save it every time an activity hits onPause
While your entire data model may be "1-2 MBytes", but the amount of data that changes is going to be a small subset of that, for any given change. Use a background thread and only modify the data that has changed.
which happens very frequently as activities come and go
It sounds like perhaps you have too many activities.
What I need is a way to determine that my application (and along with it my data model) are being destroyed
That is not possible. You will never find out that you are being destroyed. Android can and will terminate your process without warning, either at user request (e.g., Force Close, task killer) or for OS reasons (e.g., need the RAM to handle an incoming phone call).
You are welcome to use onUserLeaveHint(), which is called in a number of cases when you entire app loses the foreground, but I certainly would not count on that for something as important as persisting a data model.