I am writing an android application that uses location.LocationManager and LocationListener to receive GPS location updates. The application updates the location on a MapActivity and sends the co-ordiantes to a restful web service. The web service needs to receive location updates even when the MapActivity is not visible to the user.
At the moment i am doing everything (apart from UI) within app.Application as it stays active even when the MapActivity is not visible. However, all the documentation i have read suggests that app.Application is used to store state rather than carrying out more demaning tasks. I have tried using app.Service, but it seems to be over complicated (life-cycle, binding, unbinding) and has many memory leak problems. I haven't been able to find any articles or documentation that explicitly forbids carrying out these kind of tasks from app.Application, so i was wondering if there is anything wrong with this approach?
Edit: Thanks for the replies, looks like i am going to have to spend a bit more time figuring out app.Service
You should probably go with a service. I think that the lifecycle of the Application is bound to any of its components that are currently running. I would guess that the process monitor is at liberty to destroy your Application at will when resources are required elsewhere if it is not running any Applications or Services or whatever. You might find that your code works sometimes but you get unexpected crashes.
It is generally best to use the model that Android prescribes for the different components
Generally I think using Application is ok: I've made extensive use of it. The major complication I'd say is that the only lifecycle callback is onCreate: with Service you at least have the option of cleanly shutting it down with the onDestroy callback.
The lifecycle can be a bit confusing on the Service, I'll admit. If the Application object is working for you I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Related
Basically, there is a Google way, which suggests using Service for long running operations (which I use at the time). On the other hand, there are a lot of examples in community by honored developers, which avoid using Service and at most incorporate Fragment's setRetainInstance(boolean retain).
While Google has declared that a lot of bad stuff might happen if we don't use a Service, I still feel anxious because there are, it seems, so many projects leaving Service aside.
Can you consolidate the Google's case or provide suggestions for abandoning Service?
P.S. I'm developing "classic" rest-client applications.
P.S.S. I forgot to mention that Service is used in pair with ContentProvider(for cachging purposes, guard against system app forceshutdowns).
Thanks.
If the network request is very likely to take under a second, or if you don't mind it if your process terminates before the request completes, using simple threading from the UI layer is fine, IMHO.
But once the user leaves your app (HOME, responds to an incoming call, etc.), the lifetime of your process is limited, and it could be very short if you do not have a service to tell the OS that you're still doing important work for the user.
So, if the network request is more in the 1-15 second range, and you'd like to feel fairly confident that the work will run to completion, use an IntentService or something along those lines.
If the network request is likely to be longer than that, such as a large download, now you have to worry about the device going to sleep and such. My WakefulIntentService was designed for this sort of scenario, where it will keep the device awake long enough to get the work done, then let the device go back asleep.
Some developers use services for all significant network I/O, skipping them only for truly ephemeral stuff like thumbnail images to populate a ListView or RecyclerView. So long as the service is only running when it is actively delivering value to the user, this is perfectly fine.
I'm trying to develop an Android application consists of an Activity and a Service. The Activity launch a process on the Service of indefinite duration, which will be closed from Activity. Do not use then the subclass IntentService, but directly Service. Controlled by onStartCommand and OnDestroy.
I obviously need to pass information from the Activity to the Service: the status of the Service and some strings.
I tried to use LocalBrodcastManager, but when turning the devices or when the activity goes in state onPause, the message will lost. I tried to follow several examples, but with little success. This in particular I could not complete it because of some missing information, evidently deemed obvious, but which are not obvious to me: https://developer.android.com/training/run-background-service/report-status.html
I then tried to use Messenger via IBinder ( Example: Communication between Activity and Service using Messaging ), But the program seems a bit complex and I can not able to fit my needs.
What I need is to launch the service from my activity (possibly make binding automatically?, in case of Messenger use), the Service should signal the Activity to be active, then Service records some points via GPS LocationListener, writes it to a file and should point out, again the Activity, the data that is recording, the file size, etc.
What do you recommend to use to pass this information and can you provide to me some example?
I am actually in the midst of a tutorial explaining and comparing many different approaches to IPC in Android but since it's not ready and because you need an easy fix i'll recommend https://github.com/greenrobot/EventBus.
Also feel free to look in an old but still relevant example me and my friends made a while back here: https://github.com/RanNachmany/AndconLab
Goodluck.
I have been developing for Android for little less then 2 years, and I am still puzzled by this seemingly simple question.
When should one implement a service?
From my experience there are some rare cases but I am questioning this because on every phone there are quite a lot of them running and I doubt it's just a poor application design.
This is essentially core of my question but following are some of my experiences and thoughts about the subject which can explain my question in more detail.
In all apps that I have developed only one really required a service. It was a background sound recorder and I was using it as Foreground service with notification since I wanted buttons to be able to control it (like music players do for example).
Except this I never really saw a requirement for the constantly running service because:
A) Intent listeners (Manifest registered BroadcastReceivers) are quite a useful feature and using them as you know is usually enough for many use-cases (for example showing notifications).
B) If scheduled execution is a must one can subscribe to alarm events.
C) I know that service in Android is quite different then for example in Windows since in Android services are just a "package" to organize your code in and have a the system manage the lifetime of the object. Services use the Main Thread but it's customary to spawn new threads in them.
D) In the development documentation services are suggested for network communication and background calculations but I don't get why you should not just use AsyncTasks for that. I am a big fan of these and use them extensively for lot of things from downloading data from the internet to doing FFT calculations under time critical conditions.
E) I get the usefulness of Foreground services but why are people using background services so much (excluding the system apps).
Those are my thoughts about the SERVICE and I hope someone with more experience will be able to explain these PROS and CONS (along with others that I probably missed).
When should one implement a service?
When you have work -- delivering value to the user -- that:
Needs some time to complete, perhaps longer than you have time for in the component wishing the work to be done, or
Is delivering that value under user control (e.g., music player, controlled by play/pause buttons in a UI), or
In rare cases, needs to be running continuously, as it delivers value continuously
there are quite a lot of them running and I doubt it's just a poor application design
Some are likely to be poor implementations, either due to technical misunderstandings, or other concerns (e.g., making marketing happy) trumping making users happy.
It was a background sound recorder and I was using it as Foreground service with notification since I wanted buttons to be able to control it (like music players do for example)
That is a reasonable use for a service, IMHO.
Intent listeners are quite a useful feature and using them as you know is usually enough for many use-cases (for example showing notifications)
I assume that by "Intent listeners" you mean manifest-registered BroadcastReceivers. In that case, if the work to be done by the BroadcastReceiver will take more than a millisecond, that work should be delegated to an IntentService for completion. onReceive() is called on the main application thread, and it is not safe for a manifest-registered BroadcastReceiver to fork a bare thread, as the process could go away shortly after onReceive() returns. However, in these cases, the service is usually short-lived (e.g., do some network I/O and disk I/O, then go away).
In the development documentation services are suggested for network communication and background calculations but I don't get why you should not just use AsyncTasks for that
An AsyncTask is a fine solution for background work that is:
Requested by the UI (activity or fragment), and
Will take less than a second or so, and
Is non-critical
For example, if you are downloading avatars to show in a ListView, AsyncTask is probably a fine choice, whether you use them directly or use some image-fetching library that uses them internally.
Conversely, if the user buys an MP3 through your app, and you need to download that MP3 file, an AsyncTask is not a good solution. That could easily take over a second. While the download is going on, the user could switch away from the app (e.g., press HOME). At that point, your process is eligible to be terminated... perhaps before your download is complete. Using an IntentService to manage the download is a signal to the OS that you are really doing work here, adding value to the user, and so the process will be left alone for a little while.
Note that if the background work might take 15+ seconds, WakefulBroadcastReceiver or my WakefulIntentService is probably a good idea, so the device does not fall asleep while you are trying to wrap up this bit of work.
I can name some of the Service uses from my experience:
to implement
location listener,
sound module, generating various voices
in app content updates,
API, provide services to other apps
in app billing
Communication with webservices (if requests frequency is high)
actually (excluding 5.) they all are working for the whole app duration, they are using some of the other android services, also they manage their state. I suppose one of the important thing here is state management during application life cycle changes.
I prefer to look at AsyncTasks in a same way as Executors (ExecutorService), they should be executed sequentially and for small tasks.
In the android website, you can find a table when to use Service, Thread, or WorkManager (the new API for scheduling jobs, currently in alpha as of this comment posted). https://developer.android.com/guide/background/#table-choose
The website also state that you need to use started service only as last resort. The Android platform may not support started services in the future. Refer to this link https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/scheduling#services
You should avoid using started services that run perpetually or perform periodic work, since they continue to use device resources even when they aren't performing useful tasks. Instead, you should use other solutions that this page describes, and that provide native lifecycle management. Use started services only as a last resort. The Android platform may not support started services in the future.
If you consider UI and bound services, u would think that both can exist and not be doing anything for certian periods. In such scenarios, your UI can be recreated a lot of times however service does not. And this is where service is important. Lets say you are processing images and then rotate device you want processing to continue while UI is being recreated. You recording a voice and then rotate device. These are one of the places where I find service very important. (Having lot of heavy data processing, interaction with web, that could be few seconds)
An application background service updates sqlite database. Therefore my activities are becoming outdated. Activity intents also contain outdated params so onCreate, onResume will crash the application. An easiest solution is to restart whole application. I don't want to add IFs to all onCreate, onResume methods in all activities to handle one special case.
I noticed that ACRA has following code executed after an exception has been handled.
android.os.Process.killProcess(android.os.Process.myPid());
System.exit(10);
However many people discourage use of System.exit(0). Is System.exit(0) really that dangerous for an Android application data integrity? Of course my code will close the database before existing.
Update:
I known how to use finish(), content providers, send broadcasts, read many answers here on SO, etc. However each of these approaches requires additional thousands lines of code. I implemented solution with System.exit(0) in ten minutes. The restart is so fast that it is indistinguishable from ordinary startActivity action. The db update/restart is done after longer user inactivity so the app is already suspended by the system. My app doesn't require real time syncing. During tests the application behaves correctly. This is quick and dirty solution.
Therefore I asked the question about possible side effects of System.exit(0). Not how I can do the design differently. I know that current design is not perfect.
System.exit(0) is an artifact from Java runtime, it isn't meant for Android. So in any cases using it would be worst solution.
Why don't you use Activity.finish() gracefully?
If you terminate the process you are living in, you'll loose most of the caching and restart time (~resume in the eyes of the user) for it next time will be higher.
Read more in Activity Lifecycle documentation on Android Developers.
Killing the process will not clean up any registered resources from outside the process. BroadcastReceivers, for example. This is a leak and the device will tell you as much.
You really shouldn't be updating the database schema from a background service. Do it when your activities resume.
If you are just updating your data, resuming an activity should validate the data specified by the Intent and tell the user if, for example, Item X is no longer there.
No tool is that dangerous if used carefully and for a specific, well thought off purpose.
However, In your case I do not believe System.exit() is the right way to go. If your application depends on data from a database, create a background service (or a few, depending on what you need) that will inform your application of changes and update the data. It is, in my opinion the right way to handle changes.
As for scenarios when you want to use System.exit() I personally sometimes use it when I can't recover from a critical error and no graceful degradation is possible. In those cases it is better to force all resources associated with your application to cease rather than just leave loose ends tangling around. To clarify, you should always use error handling before doing anything radical. Proper error handling is often the way to go.
But this is a very delicate topic and you are likely to receive quite a few diverging answers.
Therefore my activities are becoming outdated.
Use a ContentProvider and ContentObserver (or the Loader framework), or use a message bus (LocalBroadcastManager, Otto, etc.) to update the activities in situ.
Activity intents also contain outdated params so onCreate, onResume will crash the application
Copy the relevant "params" to data members of the activities. Update those data members as needed (e.g., from the handlers from the message bus-raised events). Hold onto that data as part of your instance state for configuration change (e.g., onSaveInstanceState()). Use this data from onCreate(), onResume(), etc.
An easiest solution is to restart whole application
It is not easiest, if you value your users, as your users will not appreciate your app spontaneously evaporating while they are using it. Do you think that Gmail crashes their own app every time an email comes in?
Next, you will propose writing a Web app that uses some exploit to crash the browser, because you cannot figure out how to update a Web page.
I noticed that ACRA has following code executed after an exception has been handled.
A top-level exception handler is about the only sensible place to have this sort of code, and even there, the objective is for this code to never run (i.e., do not have an unhandled exception).
There's an existing answer HERE that might give you some help as to why people say it's bad to use System.Exit().
I'm writing an application with 3 mapactivities, and i've implemended a local service(like google tutorial) that recives update from location manager, to share location data from gps between these activities.
Now i want to put every activity in separated process to follow google's suggestion.
So my question is how I have to proced??
Implement and AIDL interface for remote services or register every mapactivity to location listener??
Thanks for answers and sorry for my bad english :P
If it's just a single application that needs location information, then using a remote service and AIDL is an unnecessary complication. The easiest way would be to have a local service with which the activities can bind, then have the service use sendBroadcast() to send location information. The activities can then register a BroadcastReceiver to pick up this data.
First the rationale:
That quote in the Javadoc is a bit... weird. If you understand "running" as being between onResume() and onPause(), then normally two Activities belonging to the same Application cannot "run simultaneously". You would probably have to mess with the Application class or the OS itself to have it behave otherwise.
To wit, I'm actually developing an app at the moment that uses several MapActivity subclasses and haven't encountered any problems so far (i.e. 40+h of development and testing, both on emulators and a device).
Therefore I would suggest:
Try to implement your app as a single-process activity with a local service and just run with it.
If you don't want to do that (can't blame you ;) ), or you encounter any problems, I would suggest starting out with a MapView, perhaps encapsulated within a Fragment. Here's a discussion to get you started.
In short, due to Android's practical fragmentation, keeping your Activities in one process and commiting more time by starting with a more bare-bones implementation will be a safer, ultimately less time-consuming and probably more efficient approach than artificially splitting your app and potentially gritting your teeth on the IPC. At least in my opinion.
After some research i think the best way is to implement IPC with a messenger like described in Android doc http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals/bound-services.html#Messenger.. I'll test this solution an report here the result..
Best tutorial is http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Service.html#RemoteMessengerServiceSample where is implemented a 2 way communication from client and service..