Develop Reference

How to Keep AsyncTask when user closes app

This is in my main activity:
#Override
public void onBackPressed() {
super.onBackPressed();
finish();
moveTaskToBack(true);
System.exit(0);
}
I want the AsyncTask to continue put data in my server in the background after the user closes the app.

I want the AsyncTask to continue put data in my server in the background after the user closes the app.
The purpose of AsyncTask is NOT to perform background tasks that's beyond the scope of an Activity's lifecycle. When a background thread is assigned from a thread pool, it expects to return it once the task is over. ie you cannot use an AsyncTask for which the required time is indefinite.
What you are looking for is Services in Android .
Why even use AsyncTask if we have services?
Well, say for instance you require to download an image/song from an Activity on click of a Button or you need to perform a task that would take some time to finish its execution. Performing these tasks from the Main thread(aka UI thread) is a bad approach and would make your app sluggish and eventually can lead to an ANR. So these tasks are to be processed asynchronously from a separate thread to keep the app butter smooth.

Services is one part of a solution, but note that a service runs on the foreground thread. You would want to run your AsyncTask from the service to ensure that it continues to run on a background thread.
Personally, I would recommend against using a service in favor of the JobScheduler or if you need to support devices below API 21, Evernote's JobManager (which is also a bit easier to use). These will help you schedule your background operations at appropriate times, to minimize battery use or when the device is idle. It's important to be a good citizen when using the device's resource.

You have to check Services or/and IntentServices

Why do android services run on the UI thread?

http://developer.android.com/guide/components/services.html
The page starts off by saying services are used to run long standing tasks in the background. Later in the "caution:", it says they are run on the UI thread, and any intensive work should be done in a separate thread, like the code placed inside IntentService's "onHandleIntent" callback.
If the code in onHandleIntent is the service's long standing task, and that runs in a background thread, why do they say a service runs on the UI thread?

There are multiple reasons for this:
UI thread is the way to work with events and binding, and is easier to understand how to interact with the service. That's usually already done on the UI thread, so it would also be easier to initiate functions on the service.
The service is a component without any UI, so it has less memory being used compared to activities, and also has less chance of having memory leaks compared to activities.
The service can run in the foreground, making it have less chance of being killed when the user goes to other apps.
there is also an IntentService, which has a function (called "onHandleIntent" )that runs only on the background thread, if you wish to perform easy background tasks easily.
Instead of forcing you to work in some way, Google lets you decide how&what to perform on the service.
It has its own lifecycle that isn't affected by UI. It's more affected by resource usage and OS decisions, and by the developer's choice of course.

Async task stopped when App terminates (onDestroyed is called)

I have an activity in which I do server sync with a back end server using a subclass of asyctask.
Given it is a network task and might take couple of seconds. I am afraid of the following scenario to take place.
The activity starts, and whenever the asynctask should start to run, it does so.
The onPrexecute() is called, executed, and over. Than the doInBackground() is called, and is done so, however, just when the method is being executed, the user presses the home button and swipes the app from the RECENT APPS. (this ofcourse causes the app to terminate and all the onDestroy methods get called of the alive activities..(Correct me if I'm wrong on this one)).
In my onPostExecute() method, I am inserting the data to DB and updating the VIEWs.
But since the app is 'terminated' the onPostExecute() method never runs.
my questions are :
When the user presses the home button and gets out of the app and swipes the app, is doInBackground halted at that moment ? that is, it is cut in the middle and does not continue what it does ?
What happens to the data that I was going to get from the server and put inside the DB ? Is it advisable to do put the data in the db inside the doInBackground ?

AsyncTask is a background task it will continue to run even if the app is closed and onDestroy() is called. The problem would be when the task enters onPostExecute() and tries to update any views associated with the activity it is bound to, as that activity no longer exists. If you're concerned about this, one thing I've done is to keep a reference to that AsyncTask in the calling activity, and then call the method myAsyncTaskReference.cancel(true) to cancel it in the onDestroy() of the calling activity.
Yes, I would put the DB operations in the doInBackground() method, as that runs in the background on a separate thread, and doesn't require a reference to the app activity.
Have you considered using a service for this type of thing instead? I would strongly recommend an IntentService, which is a subclass of service which is specifically designed to perform a single task in the background (similar to AsyncTask), and then kill itself once completed. It's quite easy to implement and usually only involves overriding one method - onHandleIntent() - which is called when the service starts.
It can handle all your DB operations and it has no reference to an activity and so the problem you're worried about in #1 would never occur. If you need to update a view, you can have your IntentService generate a broadcast once it's completed, and your Activity can register for that broadcast and update it's views accordingly when it receives it. And if your activity is no longer around once the broadcast is sent then it doesn't matter and nothing will fail.

When user presses 'Home', your Activtiy will pause but doInBackground will NOT, but may or may not terminate by system when system feels like it. Activity's onPause will be called. Your Asynctask doInBackGround will NOT halt. It will continue to run until the system kills your App process.
Yes, Db operations can take long. Its advisable to put in doInBackground because it runs on another Thread. onpre/onpostexcute runs on the main thread. If you are worried that System may terminate half way of your db operations, you shouse set Transcation, and only when you are done, you called commit.
Check out this post, I have tested it.

no, it doesn't stop.
It is relly better to put it to datastorage of some kind and then work with it
It is always better to use service for such goals. AsyncTasks just don't fit here. Ask your service to do the work, and then you may start or quit activities as you wish to.

If swiping app from recent stack, it is equivalent to close the app hence it will kill all tasks related to the process so async task will also get killed by the android system. ( even intent service is also get killed)
It is device dependent also. Manufacturers customised removing app from recents behaviour

Difference between Android application spawning thread vs. Service?

I have an Android application that has a need to perform work in the background and on a separate thread. For my first proof-of-concept I subclassed the Application class and inside onCreate() I spawn a Thread that does the background work. This works just great. However, I just realized that in the past I've used a service for situations like this.
The question is, is there a reason to do work on a Thread spawned from a Service instead of a Thread spawned by Application.onCreate()? The Service is supposed to perform "background" work (it uses the UI thread unless a Thread is used, I know) that is independent of the Activity and can run while no Activity is visible. Using an Application-based thread seems to accomplish all this just as well. By not using a Service it actually removes complexity because the Activity just accesses the Application singleton. As far as I know I have no need to bind to the Service.
Will I get bit by lifecycle corner cases that using a Service would prevent? That's the only concern I have over this approach, but otherwise I'm not sold on the benefits of a Service.

The difference would be if you want the thread to run in the background only when the Activity is running or if you want it to continue to run when the user leaves.
Services are capable of running in the background even when the Activity is no longer available. They are intended to be used when your app should continue to do work without any user involvement in the near future. If you run the Thread in the Service, the thread will continue to run even when the user leaves the app. This can be beneficial sometimes as the user may want you to keep downloading a really large file but doesn't want the app to continue to run in the foreground. Then, a few hours (days, months, years) later the user can re-enter the app to read the file.
If, however, you're using a thread that needs to constantly update the UI based on results, it may be more beneficial to launch it within the Activity since it has no real purpose to run in a Service. It also may be easier in your program for your Thread to talk to the UI if it's in the Activity rather than the Service. (There may be some performance benefits as Android doesn't have to handle yet another Service on it's list, but that's purely speculation on my part. I have no proof of it.)
NOTE: Threads created in Activities will still continue to run even when the Activity quits. However, this is merely because the app is still in memory. The Activity and it's thread are on a higher priority to be deleted from memory than a Service thread when the Activity is no longer within view.

If your application is not either in the foreground, or visible, then it's more likely to be killed off by the system. If you run your code as a service, rather than a thread spawned by a background process, then your task will survive for longer. No guarantees, so you still need to manage the process lifecycle properly, but running as a service is likely to give more reliable results.
See http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals/processes-and-threads.html

Android: AsyncTask vs Service

Why do I read in the answer to most questions here a lot about AsyncTask and Loaders but nothing about Services? Are Services just not known very well or are they deprecated or have some bad attributes or something? What are the differences?
(By the way, I know that there are other threads about it, but none really states clear differences that help a developer to easily decide if he is better off using the one or the other for an actual problem.)

In some cases it is possible to accomplish the same task with either an AsyncTask or a Service however usually one is better suited to a task than the other.
AsyncTasks are designed for once-off time-consuming tasks that cannot be run of the UI thread. A common example is fetching/processing data when a button is pressed.
Services are designed to be continually running in the background. In the example above of fetching data when a button is pressed, you could start a service, let it fetch the data, and then stop it, but this is inefficient. It is far faster to use an AsyncTask that will run once, return the data, and be done.
If you need to be continually doing something in the background, though, a Service is your best bet. Examples of this include playing music, continually checking for new data, etc.
Also, as Sherif already said, services do not necessarily run off of the UI thread.
For the most part, Services are for when you want to run code even when your application's Activity isn't open. AsyncTasks are designed to make executing code off of the UI thread incredibly simple.

Services are completely different: Services are not threads!
Your Activity binds to a service and the service contains some functions that when called, blocks the calling thread. Your service might be used to change temperature from Celsius to Degrees. Any activity that binds can get this service.
However AsyncTask is a Thread that does some work in the background and at the same time has the ability to report results back to the calling thread.
Just a thought: A service may have a AsyncTask object!

Service is one of the components of the Android framework, which does not require UI to execute, which mean even when the app is not actively used by the user, you can perform some operation with service. That doesn't mean service will run in a separate thread, but it runs in main thread and operation can be performed in a separate thread when needed.
Examples usages are playing music in background, syncing data with server in backgroud without user interaction etc
AsyncTask on other hand is used for UI blocking tasks to be performed on a separate thread. It is same like creating a new thread and doing the task when all the tasks of creating and maintaining the threads and send back result to main thread are taken care by the AsyncTask
Example usage are fetching data from server, CRUD operations on content resolver etc

Service and asynctasks are almost doing the same thing,almost.using service or a asynctask depends on what is your requirement is.
as a example if you want to load data to a listview from a server after hitting some button or changing screen you better go with a asynctask.it runs parallel with main ui thread (runs in background).for run asynctack activity or your app should on main UI thread.after exit from the app there is no asynctask.
But services are not like that, once you start a service it can run after you exit from the app, unless you are stop the service.like i said it depends on your requirement.if you want to keep checking data receiving or check network state continuously you better go with service.
happy coding.

In few cases, you can achieve same functionality using both. Unlike Async Task, service has it's own life cycle and inherits Context (Service is more robust than an Async Task). Service can run even if you have exited the app. If you want to do something even after app closing and also need the context variable, you will go for Service.
Example: If you want to play a music and you don't want to pause if user leaves the app, you will definitely go for Service.

Comparison of a local, in-process, base class Service✱ to an AsyncTask:
✱ (This answer does not address exported services, or any service that runs in a process different from that of the client, since the expected use cases differ substantially from those of an AsyncTask. Also, in the interest of brevity, the nature of certain specialized Service subclasses (e.g., IntentService, JobService) will be ignored here.)
Process Lifetime
A Service represents, to the OS, "an application's desire to perform a longer-running operation while not interacting with the user" [ref].
While you have a Service running, Android understands that you don't want your process to be killed. This is also true whenever you have an Activity onscreen, and it is especially true when you are running a foreground service. (When all your application components go away, Android thinks, "Oh, now is a good time to kill this app, so I can free up resources".)
Also, depending on the last return value from Service.onCreate(), Android can attempt to "revive" apps/services that were killed due to resource pressure [ref].
AsyncTasks don't do any of that. It doesn't matter how many background threads you have running, or how hard they are working: Android will not keep your app alive just because your app is using the CPU. It has to have some way of knowing that your app still has work to do; that's why Services are registered with the OS, and AsyncTasks aren't.
Multithreading
AsyncTasks are all about creating a background thread on which to do work, and then presenting the result of that work to the UI thread in a threadsafe manner.
Each new AsyncTask execution generally results in more concurrency (more threads), subject to the limitations of the AsyncTasks's thread-pool [ref].
Service methods, on the other hand, are always invoked on the UI thread [ref]. This applies to onCreate(), onStartCommand(), onDestroy(), onServiceConnected(), etc. So, in some sense, Services don't "run" in the background. Once they start up (onCreate()), they just kinda "sit" there -- until it's time to clean up, execute an onStartCommand(), etc.
In other words, adding additional Services does not result in more concurrency. Service methods are not a good place to do large amounts of work, because they run on the UI thread.
Of course, you can extend Service, add your own methods, and call them from any thread you want. But if you do that, the responsibility for thread safety lies with you -- not the framework.
If you want to add a background thread (or some other sort of worker) to your Service, you are free to do so. You could start a background thread/AsyncTask in Service.onCreate(), for example. But not all use cases require this. For example:
You may wish to keep a Service running so you can continue getting location updates in the "background" (meaning, without necessarily having any Activities onscreen).
Or, you may want to keep your app alive just so you can keep an "implicit" BroadcastReceiver registered on a long-term basis (after API 26, you can't always do this via the manifest, so you have to register at runtime instead [ref]).
Neither of these use cases require a great deal of CPU activity; they just require that the app not be killed.
As Workers
Services are not task-oriented. They are not set up to "perform a task" and "deliver a result", like AsyncTasks are. Services do not solve any thread-safety problems (notwithstanding the fact that all methods execute on a single thread). AsyncTasks, on the other hand, handle that complexity for you.
Note that AsyncTask is slated for deprecation. But that doesn't mean your should replace your AsyncTasks with Services! (If you have learned anything from this answer, that much should be clear.)
TL;DR
Services are mostly there to "exist". They are like an off-screen Activity, providing a reason for the app to stay alive, while other components take care of doing the "work". AsyncTasks do "work", but they will not, in and of themselves, keep a process alive.