I'm new to Android(and Java also) and I'm trying to understand what are Fields in predefined Android classes.
For example in the Android View class there are Fileds: EMPTY_STATE_SET, ENABLED_FOCUSED_SELECTED_STATE_SET etc.
Please can you tell me how to understand this and how can I use it? For me it looks like some constants but it's not.
Typically they are constants for the class, to be used in situations like this:
myWidget.setColor(Widget.BLACK_AND_TAN);
They usually have integer values, but they make the code more readable this way, and also allow for later changes to the API without altering the behavior of previous code. (Widgets.BLACK_AND_TAN == 7, or Widgets.BLACK_AND_TAN ==15,could both be true, or any other number. It doesn't matter. Just that BLACK_AND_TAN always corresponds to Black and Tan coloring.)
edit: note that Widget is a made up class, as is the BLACK_AND_TAN constant. let me get a real example for you.
Real Example, used to re-position the cursor every time a text field is updated:
DefaultCaret caret = (DefaultCaret)outputArea.getCaret();
caret.setUpdatePolicy(DefaultCaret.ALWAYS_UPDATE);
Note that these do not HAVE to be constants as we normally refer to them; for example
Toast.LENGTH_LONG;
can be user defined, but it does specify how long a toast should display
Related
I have a method that darkens a given hex color and percent. Currently, the only place I use this method is within one of my Activity classes (I may or may not end up using it in other classes later on).
public static int darkenColor(int color, int percent) { ... }
However, where should I put this method? Should I create a new class called Helpers that contains all of these methods that I may use only once throughout the entire app?
This is just a matter of choice. You can have Set of utility classes and have these helper methods to be in those classes. But, This method is for not used in one of your activity, and If you do not see that it will get reused in the near future in some other point, Put it as a private method inside your Activity. I say this because you do not want to over complicate the code and also By this way another developer can easily follow the flow of execution.
But after sometimes if you feel, that this code is getting reused, put that into a logically meaningful Utility class. When the code base is huge, you do not have any choice to follow a solid standardization of there to put your code, That is why there are things like Layered architectures etc.
I want to make a small change to the Android standard TimePicker class. Specifically, I'm trying to change it so it works in 15 minute increments, rather than 1 minute increments.
This post helped me constrain the range of minute values to {0, 15, 30, 45}, as required in my app. But as I pointed out in a follow up comment, the minute spinner still shows previous minute as current value - 1, and the next minute as current value + 1, which creates a sloppy-feeling user interface.
I looked into the relevant Android source code, and it appears that the changes I would need to make are pretty simple. But when I tried copying the source code into my project I got about a zillion errors relating to the package declaration, where to find Widget, how to resolve R.id variables, etc.
So my question is:
What's the best way to make a small change to a given class from Android source code, and incorporate it into your own project?
In my case, I just need to make a few small changes to TimePicker and NumberPicker, but I'm not sure how to properly set this up in my project.
Thanks for any suggestions.
But when I tried copying the source code into my project I got about a zillion errors relating to the package declaration
Your source file's directory needs to match the package name. And since you cannot overwrite android.widget.TimePicker, you will either need to move that class to a new package or give it a new name.
where to find Widget
That implies that you copied TimePicker into one of your packages. That is fine, but then you need to add in the appropriate import statements for classes that TimePicker referred to from its original package. Or, you need to keep your (renamed) TimePicker in android.widget, adding this package to your project. This is rudimentary Java.
how to resolve R.id variables
If TimePicker relies upon resources that are not part of the Android SDK, you will need to copy those resources from the AOSP into your project as well.
What's the best way to make a small change to a given class from Android source code, and incorporate it into your own project?
IMHO, that cannot be answered readily in the abstract. Generally speaking, you do the sorts of things that I listed above.
You are best off subclassing the relevant classes and overriding the methods you would like to change.
In Java, you can do the following in a subclass:
The inherited fields can be used directly, just like any other
fields.
You can declare a field in the subclass with the same name as
the one in the superclass, thus hiding it (not recommended).
You can
declare new fields in the subclass that are not in the superclass.
The inherited methods can be used directly as they are.
You can write a new instance method in the subclass that has the same signature as the one in the superclass, thus overriding it.
You can write a new static method in the subclass that has the same signature as the one in the superclass, thus hiding it.
You can declare new methods in the subclass that are not in the superclass.
You can write a subclass constructor that invokes the constructor of the superclass, either implicitly or by using the keyword super.
More info on subclassing in Java
I have been creating Spinner controls (Combo boxes/Drop downs) in one of my apps, and was surprised to find out how difficult it was to achieve all of the following features:
User facing Strings are externalized, taking advantage of strings.xml internationalisation (I18N) feature of Android.
Spinner selections operate using a System view, which facilitates not having to work with or map Strings to meaningful values (yuck).
User view to System view mapping should be easy, automated and minimal (i.e not hand rolled for every component).
Others have attempted solutions to this, but universally as far as I could see they suffer from one or many of the following problems:
UI code is creeping into their enum class which doesn’t belong there (messy), nearly all existing solutions suffered from this.
Hardcoded User facing Strings in their enum classes. Because these are not externalized you cannot do I18N using the stock Android features.
Authors typically make the Fragment or Activity an OnItemSelectedListener which perpetuates a common problem of inheritance for convenience, where composition is more appropriate.
I have developed my own solution which does this: http://www.androidanalyse.com/android-spinner-externalize-user-strings-mapped-to-system-enum/
My question is, have I missed something? This seems like something that should not have been this hard (which makes me feel like I'm possibly reinventing the wheel).
Below is some example code showing my solution in-use (which is available Apache 2 license from the link above).
String none = getString(R.string.none);
String light = getString(R.string.light);
String medium = getString(R.string.medium);
String strong = getString(R.string.strong);
SpinnerUtil.createNewSpinner(view, R.id.wind, Arrays.asList(none, light, medium, strong), WindLevel.values(),
new SpinnerItemSelectedListener<WindLevel>() {
public void onItemSelected(Spinner item, WindLevel value) {
// Take whatever action you wish to here.
}});
I would just use ArrayAdapter<WindLevel>. Yes, you created a custom typed listener, but the regular event listener gets the position and can call getItem() on the ArrayAdapter<WindLevel> to get a WindLevel properly typed.
IMHO, the vast majority of Spinner widgets will be populated with material read in from a database, the Internet, or some other dynamic data source, rather than populated by some sort of enum with display values coming from static strings that can be internationalized ahead of time.
This is not to say that your code is useless: if you find it useful, then it was worth writing. And I am sure that there are apps out there that contain your targeted pattern (i.e., a Spinner backed by an enum or equivalent where the display values are known in advance and can be internationalized) who might find your solution useful as well. Every developer who writes enough code cooks up these sorts of helper classes and the like that help map an OS or framework model into something that better fits the developer's own mental model. So long as you are not perceiving any performance issues, it's all good.
Also, note that OnItemSelectedListener is an interface; implementing that interface on an existing class is not inheritance.
I believe the reason nobody answered you is :
What problem are you trying to solve ? Spinners existed prior to your well designed attempt.
Why reinvent them in exactly the same way they exist in Android ?
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/ui/controls/spinner.html
It is a beautiful wheel indeed you designed, but still, it is just a wheel :)
UPDATE :
I think I begin to understand what you did. This is interesting. I'm not sure why you did not go to the pattern implemented by the ListPreference with its entries and entryvalues.
In fact, I'm not sure I understand why the Android team did not go that route either.
In any case, it is worth proposing your idea to the Android framework. It is after all open source.
OOTB, Robolectric does not support Locales that well. Therefore, if your app is dependent on locales (which a lot of apps are if they are i18n'nd properly) this can be a royal pain. Long story short, I created my own ShadowFooGeocoder and ShadowFooAddress that allow me to simulate the locale I want. They're basically re-implementations of the existing shadows.
However, when I bind my class as such: bindShadowClass(ShadowFooGeocoder.class), this works great. At runtime, the correct shadow is returned. The problem is that I want to set up the simulations on this object and I'm not sure how. shadowOf(instance) where instance is an injected GeoCoder returns ShadowGeoCoder. I've tried working directly with the ShadowWrangler, but that also returns a ShadowGeocoder.
How can I get at my shadowed class that I've bound through the bindShadowClass(...) call so I can set my expectations (simulations)?
Note: This is a repost of the same question on the Robolectric group here. I posted here because my success rate of getting anyone to answer questions on the group is fairly low. I'm hoping for a better result here.
What I've basically done here is extend ShadowGeocoder like this:
#SuppressWarnings({"UnusedDeclaration"})
#Implements(Geocoder.class)
public class ShadowFooBarGeocoder extends ShadowGeocoder {
// implementation stuff
}
Then I would bind it using the bindShadowClasss(...) and when I retreive the shadow via the static shadowOf(...) call I get back a "ShadowGeocoder" which is an instance of ShadowFooBarGeocoder. I then cast it to that type and perform whatever work I need to.
I'm trying to build a complex form where almost all of the elements are optional. It starts with just a single field and an "add element" button. When you click add, the form shows a Spinner of the types of elements you can add to the form (location, photo, detailed note, timestamp other than "now", etc). When you select an item, it will launch an Activity, and each item has a different associated Activity.
In addition, each choice will have several bits of data, which it would be nice to store "with" the Activity somehow:
An icon and the displayed name in the Spinner
A key for storing the data in the db (as well as passing to a webservice)
A layout for how to display the result on the original form (i.e. a thumbnail for the photo, the lat/lon for the location, etc)
I was considering a set of classes that all extend an abstract FormElement class, and would have static elements for each of the above extra pieces of data. (An additional bump for this solution is how much of a pain Resources are in a static context.)
How can I make this as clean and maintainable as possible? I'd really not enjoy editing five different files to add a new type of element to this form. (Mostly because I can guarantee I'll miss one and spend hours chasing down unbugs.)
A few tips...
Unit tests will prevent "unbugs" :)
When each Activity has obtained the information it needs from the user, call Activity#setResult() with an Intent that contains your per-type data. Intent supports all the Bundle methods, so you can set different types of data as needed.
To support #2, make sure you're using Activity#startActivityForResult(Intent,int) to launch it, and listen for the result in Activity#onActivityResult(int,Intent)
I would probably maintain the list of available "element" types for use with the SpinnerAdapter (e.g., ArrayList<Class<? extends AbstractFormElement>>, and invoke static methods like .getDisplayName(), .getActivityClass(), etc, in the Adapter's getView() method, in order to determine what to display and what Activity to launch.
In this way, your list would actually contain things like { MyPhotoElement.class, MyTextElement.class, MyDateElement.class, ...}).
As each element is added to the form, add it to an ArrayList<AbstractFormElement>, which will be used to back another Adapter for a ListView. That adapter will dispatch the inflation of a custom view layout, as well as the creation of a ViewHolder, based on what type of object it is -- that will require that each distinct AbstractFormElement will have its own "view type", according to the Adapter. See BaseAdapter#getItemViewType(int) and related getViewTypeCount().
It's worth noting that these will need distinct view types only if one cannot be converted to the other... For example, if you have two "Elements" that only need to display a string of text in the list, those can both share a "text-only" view type. Likewise, two elements that only display a photo, or can easily convert one to the other (e.g., an icon with a caption, vs a photo thumbnail with no caption), can share a single "image-plus-caption" view type.
With the above in mind, you actually would end up having to modify different files to add a new type (well, I guess technically you could have them all in one file, as inner classes, but there's really no good argument for doing that), but if you've done your interface API correctly, and follow good OO practices, and implement good unit tests, you'll considerably reduce the amount of effort required to find bugs -- simply because most of the things involved in adding a new type would actually force a compiler error if you do it incorrectly. Add to that the fact that a proper unit test suite will be able to programmatically add all possible types, and ensure that everything displays properly, and you should have a pretty streamlined process for easy extensibility :)
It sounds like a lot of work, and it might seem tedious and verbose at first... But the end result is actually much more maintainable, especially if your list of element types is going to be fairly extensive.