Develop Reference

What is the difference between thread and service in android , when downloading an image

What is the difference between thread and service in android,when downloading an image

There are lots of difference between Normal thread and a Service
Service: Due to android component it runs on UI thread but without any view shown to user. It runs in background with the same kind of property that an activity have, like you cannot run network operations (downloading image, calling web service) in service for that you have to use Thread which will run on worker thread other than UI thread.
Thread: Its an independent path of execution which can consist network operation, complex coding, huge amount of data transfer and accept. Thread is not related to android but in android it is used to perform different task. You can download an image on Thread but to show it on any UI part you have to update downloaded image on UI thread using runOnUIThread method
Please let me know if this explanation clears your doubt. If not let me know which part you did not understand and what exactly is your question.

With rare exceptions, you should never explicitly create a Thread. Threads are expensive and prone to programmer error. Use AsyncTask because it handles the complexity of thread safety and provides the optimization of thread pooling. Or better yet, if network activity is your reason for doing work outside the main thread, use one of the many network libraries that manages all of these concerns for you. Which approach is fastest is not something that can be answered generally, and should never even be a concern until you've tried the simple and clear solution and demonstrated that its performance is inadequate.
Regardless of how you make your network activity asynchronous, any network activity that is not started and completed (or cancelled) within the lifetime of a single Activity instance needs to be hosted in something else. If it only needs to survive across configuration changes, host it in a retained Fragment. If it needs to survive between different activities, host it in a Service. When choosing between these options, remember that your Activity may be destroyed any time it goes into the background or backstack.

Async task versus service to download data

I want to know which is better to download files, async task or service?
My app has eight buttons, which one starts one direfferent download (which download has ~10MB). When the user clicks on one button or more to download data is better to use async task or service?
Thanks!

In any case you should use AsyncTask because even service runs in the main (GUI) thread where no networking should be done. Whether to run the AsyncTask in a service or an activity depends on whether you want that download to continue in background.

all above answers have good points. but the life-cycle issue is the most important thing you should consider. for instance, let's say you use asyncTask. so the user starts downloading and suddenly he/she rotates the screen and because you tied the asyncTask life-cycle to activity another asyncTask operation will be kicked off and result in a compulsive 10mb download. so considering this you should use service and asyncTask together to maintain life-cycle issue and UI thread networking issue.
update: Intent-service is a better solution because it receives requests in its own thread and goes offline when it doesn't have anything to do

AsyncTask -- AsyncTask manipulate threads and/or handlers, if you can do that better with Looper and stuff why bother? AsyncTask is designed to be a helper class around Thread and Handler, and it should ideally be used for short operations (a few seconds at the most.).. how can you tell in production mode whether is not gonna take long? probably bad network, slow network,jammed network, phone restarting - and all these will probably make your downloading either corrupt or unfinished.. i am a user of apps, and i get pissed when i waste bundle on nothing..
if you ask me, use
Service
--Serviceis made to run irrespective of what app/screen is visible and make if communicate with the UI if only it is available if not continue with download and save it, AsyncTask does not constitute a generic threading framework. always use threads, its cool, we all love it.

asynctask doInBackgound() not running if there's a asynctask already running

When the user logs in into my app. I am starting an asynctask to maintain the user session. And that async task is running indefinitely till the user logs out. My problem is that when I try to start other asynctasks, their doInBackground() method is never executed.
I read somewhere that if an async task is already running, we cannot start new async task. I can confirm this because when i removed the user session async task, it worked properly. Is there a workaround?
P.S.: I have already used executeOnExecutor() method. but it didn't help.

For potentially long running operations I suggest you to use Service rather than asynctask.
Start the service when the user logs in
Intent i= new Intent(context, YourService.class);
i.putExtra("KEY1", "Value to be used by the service");
context.startService(i);
And stop the service when the user logs out
stopService(new Intent(this,YourService.class));
To get to know more about Service you can refer this
Service : Android developers
Service : Vogella
To know more about asynctask vs service you can refer this
Android: AsyncTask vs Service
When to use a Service or AsyncTask or Handler?

I read somewhere that if an async task is already running, we cannot start new async task.
Yes,That is fact that you can't run more then 5 (five) AsyncTaskat same time below the API 11 but for more yes you can using executeOnExecutor.
AsyncTask uses a thread pool pattern for running the stuff from doInBackground(). The issue is initially (in early Android OS versions) the pool size was just 1, meaning no parallel computations for a bunch of AsyncTasks. But later they fixed that and now the size is 5, so at most 5 AsyncTasks can run simultaneously.
I have figure out Some Threading rules and i found one major rule is below ,
The task can be executed only once (an exception will be thrown if a second execution is attempted.)
What is definition of AsyncTask?
AsyncTask enables proper and easy use of the UI thread. This class allows to perform background operations and publish results on the UI thread without having to manipulate threads and/or handlers.
How & Where use it?
AsyncTask is designed to be a helper class around Thread and Handler and does not constitute a generic threading framework. AsyncTasks should ideally be used for short operations (a few seconds at the most.) If you need to keep threads running for long periods of time, it is highly recommended to use it.
Why you can't use multiple AsyncTask at same time ?
There are a few threading rules that must be followed for this class to work properly:
The AsyncTask class must be loaded on the UI thread. This is done automatically as of JELLY_BEAN.
The task instance must be created on the UI thread.
execute(Params...) must be invoked on the UI thread.
Do not call onPreExecute(), onPostExecute(Result), doInBackground(Params...), onProgressUpdate(Progress...) manually.
The task can be executed only once (an exception will be thrown if a second execution is attempted.)
Running multiple AsyncTasks at the same time — not possible?
Test sample of parallel excution of AsyncTasks
Try Executor
You should go with Executor that will mange your multiple thread parallel.
Executor executor = anExecutor;
executor.execute(new RunnableTask1());
executor.execute(new RunnableTask2());
...
Sample Example 1
Sample Example 2

Just like a few others here, I object to the premise of the question.
Your core problem is that you are using an AsyncTask to perform a task beyond its scope. Others have noted this too. Those who offer solutions that can mitigate your problem through low-level threads (even java.util.Concurrent is low-level which is why Scala uses Akka actors as an abstraction), Service, etc. are quite clever, but they are treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.
As for what you should be doing, you are not the first to want to maintain a user session in an Android application. This is a solved problem. The common thread (no pun intended) in these solutions is the use of SharedPreferences. Here is a straightforward example of doing this. This Stack Overflow user combines SharedPreferences with OAuth to do something more sophisticated.
It is common in software development to solve problems by preventing them from happening in the first place. I think you can solve the problem of running simultaneous AsyncTasks by not running simultaneous AsyncTasks. User session management is simply not what an AsyncTask is for.

If you are developing for API 11 or higher, you can use AsyncTask.executeOnExecutor() allowing for multiple AsyncTasks to be run at once.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/AsyncTask.html#executeOnExecutor(java.util.concurrent.Executor, Params...)

I'll share with you, what we do on our App.
To keep user Session (We use OAuth with access/refresh tokens), we create a Singleton in our Application extended class. Why we declare this Singleton inside the MainApplication class? (Thats the name of our class), because your Singleton's life will be tided to the Activity that has created it, so if your Application is running on low memory and Garbage Collector collects your paused Activities, it will release your Singleton instance because it's associated to that Activity.
Creating it inside your Application class will let it live inside your RAM as long as the user keeps using your app.
Then, to persists that session cross application uses, we save the credentials inside SharedPreferences encrypting the fields.

yes starting 2 or more asynctasks simultaneously may cause issues on some devices. i had experienced this issue few months back. i could not predict when the 2nd asyncTask would fail to run. The issue was intermittent may caused by usage of memory as i was executing ndk code in asynctask. but i remember well that it depended on memory of device.

Similar question had been asked before. I would post the link for the similar question.
AsyncTask.executeOnExecutor() before API Level 11
Some users suggest go for Service. My advice is don't go for that path yet. Using service is much more complicated. Even you are using service, you still have to deal with threading, as
Note that services, like other application objects, run in the main
thread of their hosting process. This means that, if your service is
going to do any CPU intensive (such as MP3 playback) or blocking (such
as networking) operations, it should spawn its own thread in which to
do that work....
If we can solve a problem in elegant way, don't go for the complicated way.
I would suggest that, try one of the APIs in java.util.concurrent as suggested in below
AsyncTask is designed to be a helper class around Thread and Handler
and does not constitute a generic threading framework. AsyncTasks
should ideally be used for short operations (a few seconds at the
most.) If you need to keep threads running for long periods of time,
it is highly recommended you use the various APIs provided by the
java.util.concurrent pacakge such as Executor, ThreadPoolExecutor and
FutureTask.
I can't give you any code example so far, as I do not know how you design your session managing mechanism.
If you think your long running session managing task shouldn't bind to the life cycle of your main application life cycle, then only you might want to consider Service. However, bear in mind that, communication among your main application and Service is much more cumbersome and complicated.
For more details, please refer to http://developer.android.com/guide/components/services.html, under section Should you use a service or a thread?

AsyncTask for longer than a few seconds? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Android AsyncTask for long running operations
(4 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
The API reference states,
AsyncTasks should ideally be used for short operations (a few seconds
at the most.)
Is the problem with a doInBackground that takes, say, 30 seconds that the thread pool might run out of threads? And if that's the reason, would it cease to be a problem if I ensure my app will never have more than one such long running doInBackground executing concurrently?

The answer given by #Walter Mundt is correct. Nevertheless, I would like to add a complement of information and give a pointer to a library that can be used for long running AsyncTask.
AsyncTasks have been designed for doing stuff in background. And, yes, it's right that if your AsyncTask lasts for two long, then you will face 2 different issues :
Activities are poorly tied to the activity life cycle and you won't get the result of your AsyncTask if your activity dies. Indeed, yes, you can but it will be the rough way.
AsyncTask are not very well documented. A naive, though intuitive, implementation and use of an asynctask can quickly lead to memory leaks.
RoboSpice, the library I would like to introduce, as proposed by #Walter Mundt, uses a background service to execute this kind of requests. It has been designed for network requests (potentially long running by nature), but it could be easily adapted to execute just long running tasks, unrelated to network. I would be glad to add a patch to it.
Here is the reason why AsyncTasks are bad for long running tasks. The following reasonning is an adaptation from exerpts of RoboSpice motivations : the app that explains why using RoboSpice is filling a need on the Android platform.
The AsyncTask and Activity life cycle
AsyncTasks don't follow Activity instances' life cycle. If you start an AsyncTask inside an Activity and you rotate the device, the Activity will be destroyed and a new instance will be created. But the AsyncTask will not die. It will go on living until it completes.
And when it completes, the AsyncTask won't update the UI of the new Activity. Indeed it updates the former instance of the activity that
is not displayed anymore. This can lead to an Exception of the type java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: View not attached to window manager if you
use, for instance, findViewById to retrieve a view inside the Activity.
Memory leak issue
It is very convenient to create AsyncTasks as inner classes of your Activities. As the AsyncTask will need to manipulate the views
of the Activity when the task is complete or in progress, using an inner class of the Activity seems convenient : inner classes can
access directly any field of the outer class.
Nevertheless, it means the inner class will hold an invisible reference on its outer class instance : the Activity.
On the long run, this produces a memory leak : if the AsyncTask lasts for long, it keeps the activity "alive"
whereas Android would like to get rid of it as it can no longer be displayed. The activity can't be garbage collected and that's a central
mechanism for Android to preserve resources on the device.
Progress of your task will be lost
You can use some workarounds to create a long running asynctask and manage its life cycle accordingly to the life cycle of the activity. You can either cancel the AsyncTask in the onStop method of your activity or you can let your async task finish, and not loose its progress and relink it to the next instance of your activity.
This is possible and we show how in RobopSpice motivations, but it becomes complicated and the code is not really generic. Moreover, you will still loose the progress of your task if the user leaves the activity and comes back. This same issue appears with Loaders, although it would be a simpler equivalent to the AsyncTask with relinking workaround mentionned above.
Using an Android service
The best option is to use a service to execute your long running background tasks. And that is exactly the solution proposed by RoboSpice. Again, it is designed for networking but could be extended to non-network related stuff. This library has a large number of features.
You can even get an idea of it in less than 30 seconds thanks to an infographics.
It is really a very very bad idea to use AsyncTasks for long running operations. Nevertheless, they are fine for short living ones such as updating a View after 1 or 2 seconds.
I encourage you to download the RoboSpice Motivations app, it really explains this in-depth and provides samples and demonstrations of the different ways to do some background operations.
If you are looking for an alternative to RoboSpice for non network related tasks (for instance without caching), you could also have a look at Tape.

I believe that AyncTasks are in general still tied to the foreground activity stack that spawned them, so that e.g. if an Activity spawns an AsyncTask, the user leaves the app, and then the OS is short of memory, it will kill the Activity's process (including the still-running AsyncTask), and just expect you to restore the state and start over if the user resumes/returns to your app.
For longer-running tasks, particularly the sort where there will only be only one or a few, you probably want a Service instead, because those can persist even when your app's UI is shut down to save memory.
Disclaimer: I haven't done Android coding in awhile, so this answer may be out of date or based on a flawed understanding of how things work. I will remove this caveat if someone with more recent experience can comment to confirm; high-rep folks are welcome to just edit this paragraph away instead if they know this is correct.

android design considerations: AsyncTask vs Service (IntentService?)

I'm designing an android app which will need to do the following steps:
user pushes a button or otherwise indicates to "sync data".
sync process will use REST web services to move data to and from the server.
the data will be stored locally in a sqlite database.
the sync process should provide status updates/messages to the UI
the user should not be allowed to wander off to other parts of the application and do more work during the sync process.
The first time the sync process runs, it may take 10-20 minutes.
After the initial sync, less data will be transferred and stored and
I expect the process to take 1-2 minutes or less.
I've been doing a lot of reading about android's AsyncTask and various examples of using a Service ... But I don't fully understand the design considerations and trade-offs of choosing one design over the other. I currently have my demo project stubbed out using an AsyncTask. After watching (most of) Developing Android REST client applications: http://code.google.com/events/io/2010/sessions/developing-RESTful-android-apps.html# I'm left confused the design patterns described here feel overly
complex, perhaps because I just "don't get it" yet.
I come from a java, spring, web and desktop application background. Thinking and designing in terms of a handheld device is quite new to me. (What happens when the screen layout is changed? What happens when the phone rings while I'm running a sync?) Taking 2 steps back, if the initial sync IS going to be such a long running process, is there a better way for me to think about the problem->solution, the user experience, the user expectations of an application running on a phone?
Would love to hear from some more experienced android developers out there who have already wrestled with these questions.

In my opinion this is the most tricky/hard part of a mainstream/average Android development. For instance on BlackBerry this is IN TIMES easier.
Definitely you need to use a Service.
AsyncTask does not suit, because it is tightly "bound" to your Activity via a Context handle (otherwise you would not be able to update UI of the Activity from your AsyncTask). However an Activity can be killed by OS once the Activity went in background. An example reason of going to background can be an incoming call - user switches to Phone application so your Activity becomes invisible. In this case (depending on the current RAM state) OS may decide to kill one of the background (invisible to the user) activities.
Some devs workaround this by arranging a static stuff for having a long-running actions inside of. Some recommend to use Application instance. This is because static stuff and Application exist while the whole app process exists. However those are incorrect workarounds. Processes in Android are also may be killed when OS decides it is time to. Android OS have its own considerations about what it can kill and in what order. All processes are devided to 5 levels of "killability". Here is the doc where those levels are specified. It is interesting to read there:
Because a process running a service is
ranked higher than one with background
activities, an activity that initiates
a long-running operation might do well
to start a service for that operation,
rather than simply spawn a thread —
particularly if the operation will
likely outlast the activity. Examples
of this are playing music in the
background and uploading a picture
taken by the camera to a web site.
Using a service guarantees that the
operation will have at least "service
process" priority, regardless of what
happens to the activity.
Your Activity where users initiate a long-running action should show a ProgressDialog to make sure user does not do anything else while the action is running. The guide is here.
Also, you'd most likely want to use the NotificationManager for notifying the user about your long-running action completion (or failure) if your Activity is currently invisible. Here is the NotificationManager info to start from.

There are multiple considerations that you must weigh in order to best decide how to approach your situation. It sounds like you need a good comparison between the two approaches... So here is a list of similarities, and differences and additional considerations that must be taken into account when working on a handheld device.
A Service is a part of your Application that has no UI. It may be called by a UI(Activity) to be started, or may be started by any other component of your Application. When developing, you have the freedom to place it on a different thread, or even run it in a different Task or Process. This allows you to ultimately separate it from your UI. Additionally, you may start the Service to run independently (startService) or bind your activity to it (bindService) depending upon your needs. By using custom Handlers, you can set callbacks to update the UI with your progress. A Service does not necessarily end if a User changes Activities, but may be ended at ANY time by the OS.
A AsyncTask is always instantiated from the UI thread. It only allows specific callbacks, but simplifies the process of multi-threading for the purposes of relatively short transactions (as compared to dedicated separate threaded services) that are inherently tied to actions performed by an Activity. Whenever a User changes Activities, the AsyncTask is put on "pause" and may even die because there is no UI thread for your Activity any longer.
The thing that I would be most concerned about is if the app is going to take 10-20 minutes the first time, I would ASSUME that the User will either change tasks temporarily or set the phone down until it completes (which can cause all of the same complications if the phone sleeps). Given this consideration, a threaded service bound to your activity may be your best choice. To protect your UI, I would make a Progress Dialog for your Activity that receives your progress callbacks. This limits user input in YOUR app and allows your service to continue the way that it needs to. Then override the Activity onResume to check the status of your Service and if it is running. Then you can reset the Dialog immediately.
Given that this is my preferred method, I would also take into account that the OS may kill the App at any time anyway. So make sure to have some way to detect an incomplete or partial sync. Then you may resume automatically when your Activity or Service restarts.

With AsyncTask if the user goes to another Activity you can't transfer that object to the other Activity so it dies. There are tricks you can play when say the user rotates the screen or something like that, but that doesn't extend to general purpose destruction. AsyncTask can randomly die.
Google Sync is run as a Service in the background because syncing can take a while to complete. You might need to follow their path and create your own sync service that you can communicate with. Here is some thoughts how to accomplish that:
http://mylifewithandroid.blogspot.com/2008/01/about-binders.html
You can definitely communicate between Service and Activity, but it's tricky to do it right.

The choice is mainly dependent on the app design. Since both AsyncTask and IntentService stands their ground, what you may want from the app(user experience) is more important and then choose either or both. Some scenarios are mentioned below (mostly what I experienced while developing apps)
Assume apps that have feeds pages - where more than one api calls are made to make the page presentable ( /getFriends, /getDates, /getPictures etc.) you can warp all such api calls to a single AsyncTask with executor which is multithreaded and the sequence of execution doesn't matter. In contrast to IntentService which runs all calls in sequence in a single worker thread. For a high end device with multi-core the call from AsyncTask is more effective. And if you start the AsyncTask on UI thread then updating IU is a piece of cakes(read less boiler plate code). And even if an user leaves the page, with intelligent use of not holding on to the context the app doesn't crash.
Assuming you are trying to write an app which doesn't need the user to be on view/activity/fragment and the total execution time to show something is not mission critical (assume sync service or user notification/alarm) then IntentService is a better choice. (no hassle to start Asynctask on UI thread so that you don't need to write a Handler to force changes on UI etc. etc. and less boiler plate code)
From my experience - write small app for both and compare the pros and cons to get a better idea. (p.s I'd suggest take a look at the iosched app from google to get a better idea - they use both Asynctask and IntentService)

I tend to prefer the IntentService + BroadcastReceiver combo because they give you a really strong degree of control
You definitely have to make sure the UI is running if you are updating something on the screen. ASyncTask crashes were at once reported to be one of the top causes of Android crashes. This can be avoided by keeping some sort of "activityIsAlive" variable and skipping or delaying a UI update if the activity is dead.
The IntentService + BroadcastReceiver combo is a little more resistant to the crash because most tutorials tell you to shut off the BroadcastReceiver onPause or onStop. If you do not do this, again you'll have to turn off the UI update. There's a runOnUiThread command somewhere that will help you do UI updates.
The IntentService + BroadcastReceiver combo is also more extensible. You can create functions and extend BroadcastReceiver to make a more elegant REST processing solution. However, it does require more plumbing vs an ASyncTask
If you do delay the UI update, you may be able to rig it on OnWindowFocusChangedListener. When that function receives true, it means that the UI is alive.
tldr; Make sure the Activity and/or Fragment is alive before updating the UI if you are running something in the background
2015 Edit: check out Loaders as well. A little harder to grasp because there's a lot going on behind the scenes