I'm in the process of completely redesigning my Android app. Before, EVERYTHING was in the same class.
So I tried to redraw everything so that the code is clearer apart Admob than the doc advice to put in the Main thread, I separate the different part of my code in class. So I used two technique: I created a songleton that contains variables that I want to have access to constantly,and I call my classes via weak reference.
Here is what it looks like:
For example, the UIManager class that needs to update the game's IU have a weak reference looks like this:
private static SoftReference<UIManager> ManageUI;
static{ManageUI= new SoftReference<>(null);}
static UIManager get()
{
if(ManageUI.get()==null)
{
ManageUI= new SoftReference<>(new UIManager());
}
return ManageUI.get();
}
GameManager Manager=GameManager.getInstance();
to be able to use the findviewbyid for example I place in method argument the main class that is the mainthread
the singleton that contains all my variables that I want to have permanent access to looks like this:
private GameManager()
{}
/** Holder */
private static class Manager
{
/** Instance unique non préinitialisée */
private final static GameManager instance = new GameManager();
}
/** Point d'accès pour l'instance unique du singleton */
public static GameManager getInstance()
{
return Manager.instance;
}
To separate all in different class, I pass argument to my method so I can call au stuff belong to Activity like that:
(My main class is called GamePlay)
void OpenGlobalScene(GamePlay activity)
{
Manager.OnTitle=false;
if (!checkLayout(activity,R.id.globalscene)) {
LayoutInflater(activity,9, true);
LinearLayout GamePlan = (LinearLayout) activity.findViewById(R.id.globalscene);
GamePlan.setAlpha(Manager.AlphaBord);
}
}
For now, I have not noticed any problems except a few slownesses on old android phone 4.4.2.
Also compared to my old code were EVERYTHING was in the same class, it's much easier to change pieces of code (going to the inapp billing V3 was simpler since everything was in one class that I call like the others with weak referencre)
My questions are:
-What are the problems that such a structure might pose?
I had also chosen that structure to not load or leave in memory things that are not useful
-How are chance that Android will erase from memory an action in progress called with weak reference?
-As you can see I pass the activity has argument to the method, sometimes I pass it from a method to another. Is that fact can cause some trouble?
Thank you for your help.
Check Dagger2 is better than the clasic singleton https://developer.android.com/training/dependency-injection/dagger-android?hl=es-419
thanks for your answer and your tips. I'am gonna check this out.
Anyone else know something about consequences on memory when using weak references ?
This question already has answers here:
Non-static variable cannot be referenced from a static context
(15 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
Here is my method:
public Cursor rawQuery(String sql, String[] selectionArgs) {
try {
return m_db.rawQuery(sql, selectionArgs);
} catch (SQLiteException e) {
reportException(Context.getApplicationContext(), e);
return null;
}
}
Android Studio (3.5.3) complains saying
Non-static method getApplicationContext() cannot be referenced from a static context.
I don't see any static context here. rawQuery is a perfectly good class method of a class which is a wrapper around SQLiteDatabase to save me having to check for exceptions on every call. The exception checks are needed because it's accessing a public database and some other process may have modified it in such a way that my operation fails (for example by dropping one of my tables). It is (currently) only created and its methods called from an Activity. Of course I could pass the calling activity's context, but this is clumsy since it isn't needed most of the time and IMHO it's very poor programming style to include extra arguments in the methods of a wrapper class.
reportException does what its name says and writes a log file or displays a Notification or a Toast, depending on circumstances, and all of these need a context.
I've seen suggestions on the net to create a static instance of a subclass of Application to cache the application context. As commenters have pointed out, this doesn't always work if you need the application context in a class constructor (or anything which is called from one), but I don't expect to do this. My wrapper class is created as needed when I want to access the database. However I'm not sure if tha Application subclassing trick works if I open a database in a background server which may get kicked out of memory when not active and later restarted by the OS. It may be that the only solution is to cache the creator's context in the constructor of the wrapper class: this only requires passing the context once. However I don't much like the idea of keeping a copy of the passed context: it looks inelegant and a potential problem with garbage collection since I have to take care not to use the cached context when creating anything persistent..
However I still don't see Android Studio's justification for complaining in the case shown. I tried removing all the calls to rawQuery and it still complains, so it isn't walking the call tree to look for a non-static context. It looks as if it may be complaining if getApplicationContext is used in any class which isn't a subclass of Activity, which certainly isn't justified.
I don't see any static context here.
The "static context" referred to by the error message is the way you are calling the method: Context.getApplicationContext(). Since you are using the Context class name, this counts as a "static context". You need a Context instance in order to call getApplicationContext().
Of course I could pass the calling activity's context, but this is clumsy since it isn't needed most of the time and IMHO it's very poor programming style to include extra arguments in the methods of a wrapper class.
Yes, I agree that you should keep your argument list as trimmed down as possible. You say that this method is a wrapper around SQLiteOpenHelper which requires a Context as one of its constructor parameters. So presumably your own constructor takes a Context to pass to the wrapped SQLiteOpenHelper instance. One solution is to keep that Context as a field in your class. Then you can just use this.context.
I have a class that consists only of static member variables and static methods. Essentially, it is serving as a general-purpose utility class.
Is it bad practice for a class to contain only static member variables and static methods?
No, I don't think so at all. It is worse practice to have a class full of instance methods which don't actually depend on a particular instance. Making them static tells the user exactly how they are intended to be used. Additionally, you avoid unnecessary instantiations this way.
EDIT: As an afterthought, in general I think its nice to avoid using language features "just because", or because you think that that is the "Java way to do it". I recall my first job where I had a class full of static utility methods and one of the senior programmers told me that I wasn't fully harnessing the OO power of Java by making all of my methods "global". She was not on the team 6 months later.
As long as the class has no internal state and is essentially what is known as a leaf class (utility classes fall into this category), in other words it is independent of other classes. It is fine.
The Math class being a prime example.
Sounds reasonable.
Note: Classes that do this often have a private no-arg constructor just so that the compiler yields an error if a programmer tries to create an instance of the static class.
Static methods don't worry me much (except for testing).
In general, static members are a concern. For example, what if your app is clustered? What about start-up time -- what kind of initialization is taking place? For a consideration of these issues and more, check out this article by Gilad Bracha.
It's perfectly reasonable. In fact, in C# you can define a class with the static keyword specifically for this purpose.
Just don't get carried away with it. Notice that the java.lang.Math class is only about math functions. You might also have a StringUtilities class which contains common string-handling functions which aren't in the standard API, for example. But if your class is named Utilities, for example, that's a hint that you might want to split it up.
Note also that Java specifically introduced the static import: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_import)
Static import is a feature introduced
in the Java programming language that
members (fields and methods) defined
in a class as public static to be used
in Java code without specifying the
class in which the field is defined.
This feature was introduced into the
language in version 5.0.
The feature provides a typesafe
mechanism to include constants into
code without having to reference the
class that originally defined the
field. It also helps to deprecate the
practice of creating a constant
interface: an interface that only
defines constants then writing a class
implementing that interface, which is
considered an inappropriate use of
interfaces[1].
The mechanism can be used to reference
individual members of a class:
import static java.lang.Math.PI;
import static java.lang.Math.pow;
or all the static members of a class:
import static java.lang.Math.*;
While I agree with the sentiment that it sounds like a reasonable solution (as others have already stated), one thing you may want to consider is, from a design standpoint, why do you have a class just for "utility" purposes. Are those functionals truly general across the entire system, or are they really related to some specific class of objects within your architecture.
As long as you have thought about that, I see no problem with your solution.
The Collections class in Java SDK has static members only.
So, there you go, as long as you have proper justification -- its not a bad design
Utility methods are often placed in classes with only static methods (like StringUtils.) Global constants are also placed in their own class so that they can be imported by the rest of the code (public final static attributes.)
Both uses are quite common and have private default constructors to prevent them from being instantiated. Declaring the class final prevents the mistake of trying to override static methods.
If by static member variables you did not mean global constants, you might want to place the methods accessing those variables in a class of their own. In that case, could you eleborate on what those variables do in your code?
This is typically how utility classes are designed and there is nothing wrong about it. Famous examples include o.a.c.l.StringUtils, o.a.c.d.DbUtils, o.s.w.b.ServletRequestUtils, etc.
According to a rigid interpretation of Object Oriented Design, a utility class is something to be avoided.
The problem is that if you follow a rigid interpretation then you would need to force your class into some sort object in order to accomplish many things.
Even the Java designers make utility classes (java.lang.Math comes to mind)
Your options are:
double distance = Math.sqrt(x*x + y*y); //using static utility class
vs:
RootCalculator mySquareRooter = new SquareRootCalculator();
mySquareRooter.setValueToRoot(x*x + y*y);
double distance;
try{
distance = mySquareRooter.getRoot();
}
catch InvalidParameterException ......yadda yadda yadda.
Even if we were to avoid the verbose method, we could still end up with:
Mathemetician myMathD00d = new Mathemetician()
double distance = myMathD00d.sqrt(...);
in this instance, .sqrt() is still static, so what would the point be in creating the object in the first place?
The answer is, create utility classes when your other option would be to create some sort of artificial "Worker" class that has no or little use for instance variables.
This link http://java.dzone.com/articles/why-static-bad-and-how-avoid seems to go against most of the answers here. Even if it contains no member variables (i.e. no state), a static class can still be a bad idea because it cannot be mocked or extended (subclassed), so it is defeating some of the principles of OO
I wouldn't be concerned over a utility class containing static methods.
However, static members are essentially global data and should be avoided. They may be acceptable if they are used for caching results of the static methods and such, but if they are used as "real" data that may lead to all kinds of problems, such as hidden dependencies and difficulties to set up tests.
From TSLint’s docs:
Users who come from a Java-style OO language may wrap their utility functions in an extra class, instead of putting them at the top level.
The best way is to use a constant, like this:
export const Util = {
print (data: string): void {
console.log(data)
}
}
Examples of incorrect code for this rule:
class EmptyClass {}
class ConstructorOnly {
constructor() {
foo();
}
}
// Use an object instead:
class StaticOnly {
static version = 42;
static hello() {
console.log('Hello, world!');
}
}
Examples of correct code for this rule:
class EmptyClass extends SuperClass {}
class ParameterProperties {
constructor(public name: string) {}
}
const StaticOnly = {
version: 42,
hello() {
console.log('Hello, world!');
},
};
I am new to android. If my question is wrong please forgive me,
My Question is:
Can I write a method in android which can be accessed from anywhere inside my application?
I've studied VB for all these years and now I am trying to program in android, I couldn't stop comparing them when I write code.
In VB we can create modules and access it from anywhere. Is there anything I can do in Android...??
Answers and advises are needed!
You have to create a class with a static method:
public class MyClass {
public static void myMethod() {
// Your code here...
}
}
And you can call it like this: MyClass.myMethod();
You can try extending Application and put your common functions there.
In all activities you can access this via context.
For reference follow this:
http://www.devahead.com/blog/2011/06/extending-the-android-application-class-and-dealing-with-singleton/
It is a long topic to discuss , but as you have simply ask whether method is accessible or not , then answer is yes but with some respect of java rules.
Android is again like java coding, You can do same thing what we can do with java.
Same Data type
Method Format
Class structure
Inheritance, Public , private , protected, etc.
So while you write your code you should care for that all things and these all thing you know because you are working in VB.
VB module equivalent is not there in java(android),
but some how you can mock them to some extend by using final classes with static methods.
Anyway you need to import the package containing these type of classes wherever you use it.
I am using the TextToSpeech API and I want to seperate some logic into another class.
In the separate class I have put the following method:
public static void sayHello() {
// Select a random hello.
int helloLength = SoundGameScore.Questions.length;
String hello = SoundGameScore.Questions[currentHelloIndex];
currentHelloIndex = (currentHelloIndex + 1) % helloLength;
mTts.speak(hello, TextToSpeech.QUEUE_FLUSH, // Drop all pending entries
// in the playback queue.
null);
I have then created a variable in the main class: static mainclass object;
Within a button in the main class I call the method through this object by using:
object.sayHello();
I am quite new to android, and I know I am doing something wrong as this gives me a process closed error in the emulator. This also shows a nullexception error in logcat. Please help me, thanks.
I think you are getting a NullPointerException because the reference object is null. You would need to initialise the object in order to call an instance method on it.
However since sayHello() is a static method, you do not need to create an instance of the class in order to call the method. Just use mainclass.sayHello().
Your question and code suggests to me that you do not have much experience with Java. Perhaps you should do some tutorials to brush up on your Java coding before jumping into Android development. For example, Java convention is for class names to be capitalised (MainClass) and for references to have meaningful names (i.e. not things like object).