With the release of Gingerbread, I have been experimenting with some of the new API's, one of them being StrictMode.
I noticed that one of the warnings is for getSharedPreferences().
This is the warning:
StrictMode policy violation; ~duration=1949 ms: android.os.StrictMode$StrictModeDiskReadViolation: policy=23 violation=2
and it's being given for a getSharedPreferences() call being made on the UI thread.
Should SharedPreferences access and changes really be made off the UI thread?
I'm glad you're already playing with it!
Some things to note: (in lazy bullet form)
if this is the worst of your problems, your app's probably in a good spot. :) Writes are generally slower than reads, though, so be sure you're using SharedPreferenced$Editor.apply() instead of commit(). apply() is new in GB and async (but always safe, careful of lifecycle transitions). You can use reflection to conditionally call apply() on GB+ and commit() on Froyo or below. I'll be doing a blogpost with sample code of how to do this.
Regarding loading, though...
once loaded, SharedPreferences are singletons and cached process-wide. so you want to get it loaded as early as possible so you have it in memory before you need it. (assuming it's small, as it should be if you're using SharedPreferences, a simple XML file...) You don't want to fault it in the future time some user clicks a button.
but whenever you call context.getSharedPreferences(...), the backing XML file is stat'd to see if it's changed, so you'll want to avoid those stats during UI events anyway. A stat should normally be fast (and often cached), but yaffs doesn't have much in the way of concurrency (and a lot of Android devices run on yaffs... Droid, Nexus One, etc.) so if you avoid disk, you avoid getting stuck behind other in-flight or pending disk operations.
so you'll probably want to load the SharedPreferences during your onCreate() and re-use the same instance, avoiding the stat.
but if you don't need your preferences anyway during onCreate(), that loading time is stalling your app's start-up unnecessarily, so it's generally better to have something like a FutureTask<SharedPreferences> subclass that kicks off a new thread to .set() the FutureTask subclasses's value. Then just lookup your FutureTask<SharedPreferences>'s member whenever you need it and .get() it. I plan to make this free behind the scenes in Honeycomb, transparently. I'll try to release some sample code which
shows best practices in this area.
Check the Android Developers blog for upcoming posts on StrictMode-related subjects in the coming week(s).
Accessing the shared preferences can take quite some time because they are read from flash storage. Do you read a lot? Maybe you could use a different format then, e.g. a SQLite database.
But don't fix everything you find using StrictMode. Or to quote the documentation:
But don't feel compelled to fix everything that StrictMode finds. In particular, many cases of disk access are often necessary during the normal activity lifecycle. Use StrictMode to find things you did by accident. Network requests on the UI thread are almost always a problem, though.
One subtlety about Brad's answer: even if you load the SharedPreferences in onCreate(), you should probably still read values on the background thread because getString() etc. block until reading the shared file preference in finishes (on a background thread):
public String getString(String key, String defValue) {
synchronized (this) {
awaitLoadedLocked();
String v = (String)mMap.get(key);
return v != null ? v : defValue;
}
}
edit() also blocks in the same way, although apply() appears to be safe on the foreground thread.
(BTW sorry to put this down here. I would have put this as a comment to Brad's answer, but I just joined and don't have enough reputation to do so.)
I know this is an old question but I want to share my approach. I had long reading times and used a combination of shared preferences and the global application class:
ApplicationClass:
public class ApplicationClass extends Application {
private LocalPreference.Filter filter;
public LocalPreference.Filter getFilter() {
return filter;
}
public void setFilter(LocalPreference.Filter filter) {
this.filter = filter;
}
}
LocalPreference:
public class LocalPreference {
public static void saveLocalPreferences(Activity activity, int maxDistance, int minAge,
int maxAge, boolean showMale, boolean showFemale) {
Filter filter = new Filter();
filter.setMaxDistance(maxDistance);
filter.setMinAge(minAge);
filter.setMaxAge(maxAge);
filter.setShowMale(showMale);
filter.setShowFemale(showFemale);
BabysitApplication babysitApplication = (BabysitApplication) activity.getApplication();
babysitApplication.setFilter(filter);
SecurePreferences securePreferences = new SecurePreferences(activity.getApplicationContext());
securePreferences.edit().putInt(Preference.FILER_MAX_DISTANCE.toString(), maxDistance).apply();
securePreferences.edit().putInt(Preference.FILER_MIN_AGE.toString(), minAge).apply();
securePreferences.edit().putInt(Preference.FILER_MAX_AGE.toString(), maxAge).apply();
securePreferences.edit().putBoolean(Preference.FILER_SHOW_MALE.toString(), showMale).apply();
securePreferences.edit().putBoolean(Preference.FILER_SHOW_FEMALE.toString(), showFemale).apply();
}
public static Filter getLocalPreferences(Activity activity) {
BabysitApplication babysitApplication = (BabysitApplication) activity.getApplication();
Filter applicationFilter = babysitApplication.getFilter();
if (applicationFilter != null) {
return applicationFilter;
} else {
Filter filter = new Filter();
SecurePreferences securePreferences = new SecurePreferences(activity.getApplicationContext());
filter.setMaxDistance(securePreferences.getInt(Preference.FILER_MAX_DISTANCE.toString(), 20));
filter.setMinAge(securePreferences.getInt(Preference.FILER_MIN_AGE.toString(), 15));
filter.setMaxAge(securePreferences.getInt(Preference.FILER_MAX_AGE.toString(), 50));
filter.setShowMale(securePreferences.getBoolean(Preference.FILER_SHOW_MALE.toString(), true));
filter.setShowFemale(securePreferences.getBoolean(Preference.FILER_SHOW_FEMALE.toString(), true));
babysitApplication.setFilter(filter);
return filter;
}
}
public static class Filter {
private int maxDistance;
private int minAge;
private int maxAge;
private boolean showMale;
private boolean showFemale;
public int getMaxDistance() {
return maxDistance;
}
public void setMaxDistance(int maxDistance) {
this.maxDistance = maxDistance;
}
public int getMinAge() {
return minAge;
}
public void setMinAge(int minAge) {
this.minAge = minAge;
}
public int getMaxAge() {
return maxAge;
}
public void setMaxAge(int maxAge) {
this.maxAge = maxAge;
}
public boolean isShowMale() {
return showMale;
}
public void setShowMale(boolean showMale) {
this.showMale = showMale;
}
public boolean isShowFemale() {
return showFemale;
}
public void setShowFemale(boolean showFemale) {
this.showFemale = showFemale;
}
}
}
MainActivity (activity that get called first in your application):
LocalPreference.getLocalPreferences(this);
Steps explained:
The main activity calls getLocalPreferences(this) -> this will read your preferences, set the filter object in your application class and returns it.
When you call the getLocalPreferences() function again somewhere else in the application it first checks if it's not available in the application class which is a lot faster.
NOTE: ALWAYS check if an application wide variable is different from NULL, reason -> http://www.developerphil.com/dont-store-data-in-the-application-object/
The application object will not stay in memory forever, it will get killed. Contrary to popular belief, the app won’t be restarted from scratch. Android will create a new Application object and start the activity where the user was before to give the illusion that the application was never killed in the first place.
If I didn't check on null I would allow a nullpointer to be thrown when calling for example getMaxDistance() on the filter object (if the application object was swiped from the memory by Android)
SharedPreferences class does some reads & writes within XML files on disk, so just like any other IO operation it could be blocking. The amount of data currently stored in SharedPreferences affects the time and resource consumed by the API calls. For minimal amounts of data it's a matter of a few milliseconds (sometimes even less than a millisecond) to get/put data. But from the point of view of an expert it could be important to improve the performance by doing the API calls in background. For an asynchronous SharedPreferences I suggest checking out the Datum library.
i do not see any reason to read them from a background thread. but to write it i would. at startup time the shared preference file is loaded into memory so its fast to access, but to write things can take a bit of time so we can use apply the write async. that should be the difference between commit and apply methods of shared prefs.
Related
I am relatively new to Android development, and I have a question about onSaveInstanceState(). I am currently working on a login Activity for an app. To check to see if the user can login to their account, I perform a rest call to a server and, based on the response-code, see if I should grant access to the user. The root of my question is based on the fact that I am trying to avoid passing the Activity's Context to my rest-call class. To do this, I create a boolean field in my login Activity representing whether or not the rest-call was successful and a runnable that updates said boolean that I pass to the rest-call class. I know this goes against the idea of an AsyncTask, but I can't find any alternative to simply putting up a dialog box telling the user to wait while this happens. My questions are below.
1) If I use savedInstanceState() in the onCreate method, how do I instantiate this boolean field for the first time barring null checking an Object boolean? What I mean by this is that after the Activity is destroyed for whatever reason (such as orientation change, etc...) I will use the boolean value stored in my overriden onSaveInstanceState method; however, when it is created for the first time, it has no reference to a boolean value so it has to create one.
2) Does this Runnable even help? I did it so that I wouldn't have to pass the context, but if the Activity is going to be deleted before the RestCall(AsyncTask) is complete, does it really matter whether you pass the context or a Runnable affecting a field of the Activity? The more I think about this, the more I believe it is not going to make much of a difference as it will still result in it pointing to a non-existent object. I am trying to avoid using a Singleton design as I have gathered it is not optimal, but because of the potential lag in time with an AsyncTask, I am beginning to think that it may not be avoidable.
I know onSaveInstanceState() is a topic that has been brought up a lot on StackOverflow, however, I could not find an answer to these questions. I apologize if there has already been a thread for this, but any help or guidance on this would be greatly appreciated! Thank You!
Login Activities' setup:
public class LoginActivity extends Activity implements View.OnClickListener {
private EditText username_et;
private EditText password_et;
private Button login_b;
private boolean login_success = true;
private Runnable run;
/**
* Instances created when app starts
*/
#Override
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
setContentView(R.layout.view_login);
// login_success = false;
login_success = savedInstanceState.getBoolean("login_success");
username_et = (EditText) findViewById(R.id.username_text);
username_et.setOnClickListener(LoginActivity.this);
password_et = (EditText) findViewById(R.id.password_text);
password_et.setOnClickListener(LoginActivity.this);
login_b = (Button) findViewById(R.id.login_button);
login_b.setOnClickListener(LoginActivity.this);
run = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
login_success = true;
}
};
}
#Override
public void onSaveInstanceState(Bundle savedInstanceState){
super.onSaveInstanceState(savedInstanceState);
savedInstanceState.putBoolean("login_success", login_success);
}
Congratulations. You just discovered Android's dirty little secret.
AsyncTask has an inherent design flaw. It doesn't deal well with configuration changes that happen during background task execution because of exactly the problem you mentioned. It needs to hold a reference to the activity, but there's no guarantee that the reference will still be valid by the time the background task completes.
Here are two ways to overcome this problem:
I refer you to Alex Lockwood's excellent blog post on using hidden fragments with setRetainInstance(true) to span activity destruction and recreation. This is a more involved solution than the next one, but this solution has the advantage that you can still report progress with callbacks. If you were intending to call publishProgress() in your AsyncTask, then this is the method you should use.
Use a Loader. Loaders were designed around database data retrieval in the background, but the fact is that they can also be used to handle remote server access in the background as well. I use a Loader for the majority of my remote server tasks.
Here's an example:
public static class ResetPasswordLoader extends AsyncTaskLoader<Pair<CharSequence, Exception>> {
private static final String TAG = "ResetPasswordLoader ";
private String mEmail;
public ResetPasswordLoader(Context context, String email) {
super(context);
mEmail = email;
// set the content-changed flag
onContentChanged();
}
#Override
protected void onStartLoading() {
// only start the load if the content-changed flag is set
// takeContentChanged() returns the value of the flag before it is cleared
if (takeContentChanged()) {
forceLoad();
}
}
#Override
public Pair<CharSequence, Exception> loadInBackground() {
CharSequence result = null;
Exception exc = null;
try {
result = Service.getInstance().resetPassword(mEmail);
} catch (RemoteServiceException e) {
exc = e;
Log.e(TAG, "loadInBackground(), email = " + mEmail, e);
}
return new Pair<>(result, exc);
}
}
Also, in my onLoadFinished() override I make sure to call loaderManager.destroyLoader() on the loader's id.
Again, Alex Lockwood's blog has some great articles on loaders as well.
For the UI, something I do frequently is put up a indeterminate progress bar over the UI upon calling loaderManager.initLoader(). I also set a boolean like mProgressShown. This boolean gets saved in onSaveInstanceState, so when the activity/fragment is created again, I restore the boolean value which tells me to show the progress bar immediately. Some time later onLoadFinished will be called and I clear mProgressShown and hide the progress bar.
I'm writing UI tests with Espresso. App cooperates tightly with server, so in many cases, I need to wait for either value to be calculated, or data is got and displayed, etc. Espresso suggests using IdlingResource for this.
My IdlingResource classes look like this (simple and clear example).
public class IRViewVisible implements IdlingResource {
private View view;
private ResourceCallback callback;
public IRViewVisible(View view) {
this.view = view;
}
#Override
public String getName() {
return IRViewVisible.class.getName();
}
#Override
public boolean isIdleNow() {
if(view.getVisibility() == View.VISIBLE && callback != null) {
callback.onTransitionToIdle();
return true;
}
return false;
}
#Override
public void registerIdleTransitionCallback(ResourceCallback resourceCallback) {
this.callback = resourceCallback;
}
}
Please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere (as sometimes it seems to me that my IdlingResources do not work properly).
I register the idling resource in setUp() like this:
IRViewVisible ir = new IRViewVisible(View v);
Espresso.registerIdlingResources(ir).
Unregister it on tearDown().
I found this article (there is a section called "Register a component tied to an Activity instance") — I do not use his schema, but I checked hashcode of view that was set to IdlingResource after registering (in each method), and it's not the same view — all hashes are different.
Another question: One Test class (it's results) can't have any effect on another Test class, can it?
I'm guessing your problem stems from getName() returning the same name for all instances of IRViewVisible. This means you can only have one registered instance of it at a time - any subsequent registrations will fail (silently!).
You mention that you clear the IdlingResources at the end of each test, but if you are register multiple instances of it at once, you need to make sure each instance has a unique name. it's not clear from your question if you're registering multiple instances of IRViewVisible in a single test.
As to your final question: Yes, it is possible. Android doesn't completely shut down the Application between test runs - just the Activities. Common things which can cause problems:
Failing to clear persistent state (saved data).
Failing to clear global state - e.g. static variables/singletons
Not waiting for background threads to finish running.
As an aside, it's worth noting that you only call onTransitionToIdle() inside isIdleNow(). This works (thanks #Be_Negative for the heads up!) but it could slow down your tests a lot, since Espresso will only poll isIdleNow() every few seconds. If you call onTransitionToIdle() as soon as the view becomes visible, it should speed things up considerably.
I needed something similar to your IRViewVisible myself, here's my effort.
So the isIdleNow() method will never return true if you don't set a callback to the idlingResource?
I reckon it's better to refactor it like this:
#Override
public boolean isIdleNow() {
boolean idle = view.getVisibility() == View.VISIBLE;
if(idle && callback != null) {
callback.onTransitionToIdle();
}
return idle;
}
Well, first of all you shouldn't need to use Espresso IdlingResource to test server calls. If you use AsyncTasks in your server calls, Espresso will be able to know when to be idle and when not. If this is not enough: try to refactor your code in this way:
IRViewVisible idlingResource = new IRViewVisible(yourView);
IdlingPolicies.setMasterPolicyTimeout(waitingTime * 2, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
IdlingPolicies.setIdlingResourceTimeout(waitingTime * 2, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
// Now we wait
Espresso.registerIdlingResources(idlingResource);
// Stop and verify
// Clean up
Espresso.unregisterIdlingResources(idlingResource);
Hope to be helpful.
I'm writing an application which run a background Service which communicate with a remote server.
when the server sends me a new message, i need to update an object which is represent in the UI and then to update the UI View to represent the new state of the object (for example if the object's background propery is true - set the background of the View to green and if false set the background of the view to red).
I'm using a list view to show all an ArrayList of all those objects throw an ArrayAdapter.
I have an Application object (named app) for static reference and i have there a CurrentActivity property which store the current activity running (or null if the UI is closed).
i'm using this code to update the UI:
in my Service:
onNewMessage(boolean backgruond)
{
if (app.getCurrentActivity != null)
app.getCurrentActivity.onNewMessage(background);
}
in my Activity:
onNewMessage(boolean background)
{
object.setBackground(bacground);
Log.d("Background", String.valueof(background));
runOnUiThread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run()
{
arrayAdapter.notifyDataSetChanged();
}
});
}
and although the Log returns the right background state, the view isn't refreshing with the notifyDataSetChanged();
i've tried to send message to Activity throw BroadcastRecevier but it much more complicated because i have lots of messages coming from the server and i will have to register many receivers.
And besides - i don't understand why would the recevier work and this mechanism wont..
example of working method which updates the ListView:
ListViewActivity - inheritance from BaseActivity:
#Override
public void onUnFriend(FacebookUser facebookUser, boolean isYouRemovedClient)
{
super.onUnFriend(facebookUser, isYouRemovedClient);
updateView();
}
BaseActivity (the super class which extends Activity):
public void onUnFriend(FacebookUser facebookUser, boolean isYouRemovedClient)
{
facebookUser.setApplicationFriend(false);
app.getApplicationFriends().remove(facebookUser);
app.getDatabaseManager().deleteApplicationFriend(facebookUser.getId());
if (isYouRemovedClient)
app.showToast(facebookUser.getName() + " has removed from your friends", true);
else
app.showToast(facebookUser.getName() + " has removed you from friends", true);
}
this one works and does change the background color in the ListView.
not working example
ListViewActivity:
#Override
public void onFriendRequestAccepted(FacebookUser facebookUser, boolean showDialog) {
super.onFriendRequestAccepted(facebookUser, showDialog);
updateView();
}
BaseActivity:
public void onFriendRequestAccepted(FacebookUser facebookUser, boolean showDialog)
{
facebookUser.setApplicationFriend(true);
app.getApplicationFriends().add(facebookUser);
app.getDatabaseManager().addApplicationFriend(facebookUser);
if (showDialog)
app.showNewEventActivity(facebookUser, EventDialogManager.EVENT_FRIEND_ACCEPTED);
}
no update is made... i can't really understand why..
i have there a CurrentActivity property which store the current activity running (or null if the UI is closed)
I do not recommend this practice. It relies upon you consistently and reliably updating that Application data member, and it increases the coupling between your service and your UI.
and although the Log returns the right background state, the view isn't refreshing with the notifyDataSetChanged();
It would appear that you did not change the data in the adapter. Certainly, there is no evidence in the code that you have here that you updated the data in the adapter.
BTW, neither of the code snippets you have shown here are likely to compile (first is not valid Java, second has a typo).
i have lots of messages coming from the server and i will have to register many receivers
No, you will have to register one receiver, and in onReceive(), use an if statement (or perhaps a switch, if you prefer) to distinguish one message from another.
In addition to what CommonsWare said, I assume that object in the first line of your onNewMessage is the view. setBackround accepts an int parameter, not a boolean.
Use 0xFF00FF00 for green and 0xFFFF0000 for red.
By the way, it's a very bad practice to keep static references of Context objects and it's derived classes (Application and Activity both derive from Context, and keeping a static reference of them may lead to serious memory leaks. Read more here.)
Use a BroadcastReceiver instead. They are much more simple comparing to how you described them - you only need one.
I need to find a solution that holds and accesses large chunks of complex global data and methods. It has to be accessible from within activities and normal instance variables of various data classes.
This is how I have done it. I would just like to know if there is anything wrong with it or if there is a better/cleaner way.
First I extend Application like recommended many times...
public class MainDataManager extends Application{
public ... large chunks of data in arrays, lists, sets,....
//static variable for singleton access from within instance variables of other classes
public static MainDataManager mainDataManager;
//create and init the global data, and store it in the static variable of the class
#Override
public void onCreate() {
super.onCreate();
//in case it should get called more than once for any reason
if (mainDataManager == null) {
init();
mainDataManager = this;
}
}
Now accessing it from within activities like everywhere recommended...
MainDataManager mainDataManager = (MainDataManager)getApplicationContext();
And since I need to access it from normal instances of data classes ...
public class MyDataClass {
public MainDataManager mainDataManager;
public String name;
public MyDataClass(String namex) {
this.name = namex;
//this is why I defined the static variable within MainDataManager, so
//one has access to it from within the instance of MyDataClass
this.mainDataManager = MainDataManager.mainDataManager;
}
public void examplesForAccessing() {
//some examples on how to access the global data structure and associated methods
mainDataManager.someMethodAccess();
xyz = mainDataManager.someDataAccess;
mainDataManager.someIndirectMethodAccess.clear();
mainDataManager.someOtherData = false;
}
}
Since I have not done this so far, I would like to know if there is anything wrong with this. Memory, efficiency, ...
Thanks very much!
May I add a little sidenote?
I could also have just used a class MainDataClass and access by MainDataClass.var or MainDataClass.method(). Is there any REAL disadvantage?
Is the data in both cases held in heap/stack?
You haven't given much detail about your "large chunks of data" but keep in mind that the onCreate method is the first things that runs when your application is starting and it runs on the main/UI thread. This means that if you do long tasks in your init() method your UX will be poor, not to mention that you are risking an ANR exception.
The solution for that is simple:
Keep your onCreate short
Create a BG thread and use it to run all initialization code
Show a "Splash"/"Welcome" screen with the a proper progressbar while the BG thread is running.
I have investigated this problem for months now, came up with different solutions to it, which I am not happy with since they are all massive hacks. I still cannot believe that a class that flawed in design made it into the framework and no-one is talking about it, so I guess I just must be missing something.
The problem is with AsyncTask. According to the documentation it
"allows to perform background
operations and publish results on the
UI thread without having to manipulate
threads and/or handlers."
The example then continues to show how some exemplary showDialog() method is called in onPostExecute(). This, however, seems entirely contrived to me, because showing a dialog always needs a reference to a valid Context, and an AsyncTask must never hold a strong reference to a context object.
The reason is obvious: what if the activity gets destroyed which triggered the task? This can happen all the time, e.g. because you flipped the screen. If the task would hold a reference to the context that created it, you're not only holding on to a useless context object (the window will have been destroyed and any UI interaction will fail with an exception!), you even risk creating a memory leak.
Unless my logic is flawed here, this translates to: onPostExecute() is entirely useless, because what good is it for this method to run on the UI thread if you don't have access to any context? You can't do anything meaningful here.
One workaround would be to not pass context instances to an AsyncTask, but a Handler instance. That works: since a Handler loosely binds the context and the task, you can exchange messages between them without risking a leak (right?). But that would mean that the premise of AsyncTask, namely that you don't need to bother with handlers, is wrong. It also seems like abusing Handler, since you are sending and receiving messages on the same thread (you create it on the UI thread and send through it in onPostExecute() which is also executed on the UI thread).
To top it all off, even with that workaround, you still have the problem that when the context gets destroyed, you have no record of the tasks it fired. That means that you have to re-start any tasks when re-creating the context, e.g. after a screen orientation change. This is slow and wasteful.
My solution to this (as implemented in the Droid-Fu library) is to maintain a mapping of WeakReferences from component names to their current instances on the unique application object. Whenever an AsyncTask is started, it records the calling context in that map, and on every callback, it will fetch the current context instance from that mapping. This ensures that you will never reference a stale context instance and you always have access to a valid context in the callbacks so you can do meaningful UI work there. It also doesn't leak, because the references are weak and are cleared when no instance of a given component exists anymore.
Still, it is a complex workaround and requires to sub-class some of the Droid-Fu library classes, making this a pretty intrusive approach.
Now I simply want to know: Am I just massively missing something or is AsyncTask really entirely flawed? How are your experiences working with it? How did you solve these problem?
Thanks for your input.
How about something like this:
class MyActivity extends Activity {
Worker mWorker;
static class Worker extends AsyncTask<URL, Integer, Long> {
MyActivity mActivity;
Worker(MyActivity activity) {
mActivity = activity;
}
#Override
protected Long doInBackground(URL... urls) {
int count = urls.length;
long totalSize = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
totalSize += Downloader.downloadFile(urls[i]);
publishProgress((int) ((i / (float) count) * 100));
}
return totalSize;
}
#Override
protected void onProgressUpdate(Integer... progress) {
if (mActivity != null) {
mActivity.setProgressPercent(progress[0]);
}
}
#Override
protected void onPostExecute(Long result) {
if (mActivity != null) {
mActivity.showDialog("Downloaded " + result + " bytes");
}
}
}
#Override
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
mWorker = (Worker)getLastNonConfigurationInstance();
if (mWorker != null) {
mWorker.mActivity = this;
}
...
}
#Override
public Object onRetainNonConfigurationInstance() {
return mWorker;
}
#Override
protected void onDestroy() {
super.onDestroy();
if (mWorker != null) {
mWorker.mActivity = null;
}
}
void startWork() {
mWorker = new Worker(this);
mWorker.execute(...);
}
}
The reason is obvious: what if the
activity gets destroyed which
triggered the task?
Manually disassociate the activity from the AsyncTask in onDestroy(). Manually re-associate the new activity to the AsyncTask in onCreate(). This requires either a static inner class or a standard Java class, plus perhaps 10 lines of code.
It looks like AsyncTask is a bit more than just conceptually flawed. It is also unusable by compatibility issues. The Android docs read:
When first introduced, AsyncTasks were executed serially on a single background thread. Starting with DONUT, this was changed to a pool of threads allowing multiple tasks to operate in parallel. Starting HONEYCOMB, tasks are back to being executed on a single thread to avoid common application errors caused by parallel execution. If you truly want parallel execution, you can use the executeOnExecutor(Executor, Params...) version of this method with THREAD_POOL_EXECUTOR; however, see commentary there for warnings on its use.
Both executeOnExecutor() and THREAD_POOL_EXECUTOR are Added in API level 11 (Android 3.0.x, HONEYCOMB).
This means that if you create two AsyncTasks to download two files, the 2nd download will not start until the first one finishes. If you chat via two servers, and the first server is down, you will not connect to the second one before the connection to the first one times out. (Unless you use the new API11 features, of course, but this will make your code incompatible with 2.x).
And if you want to target both 2.x and 3.0+, the stuff becomes really tricky.
In addition, the docs say:
Caution: Another problem you might encounter when using a worker thread is unexpected restarts in your activity due to a runtime configuration change (such as when the user changes the screen orientation), which may destroy your worker thread. To see how you can persist your task during one of these restarts and how to properly cancel the task when the activity is destroyed, see the source code for the Shelves sample application.
Probably we all, including Google, are misusing AsyncTask from the MVC point of view.
An Activity is a Controller, and the controller should not start operations that may outlive the View. That is, AsyncTasks should be used from Model, from a class that is not bound to the Activity life cycle -- remember that Activities are destroyed on rotation. (As to the View, you don't usually program classes derived from e.g. android.widget.Button, but you can. Usually, the only thing you do about the View is the xml.)
In other words, it is wrong to place AsyncTask derivatives in the methods of Activities. OTOH, if we must not use AsyncTasks in Activities, AsyncTask loses its attractiveness: it used to be advertised as a quick and easy fix.
I'm not sure it's true that you risk a memory leak with a reference to a context from an AsyncTask.
The usual way of implementing them is to create a new AsyncTask instance within the scope of one of the Activity's methods. So if the activity is destroyed, then once the AsyncTask completes won't it be unreachable and then eligible for garbage collection? So the reference to the activity won't matter because the AsyncTask itself won't hang around.
It would be more robust to keep a WeekReference on your activity :
public class WeakReferenceAsyncTaskTestActivity extends Activity {
private static final int MAX_COUNT = 100;
private ProgressBar progressBar;
private AsyncTaskCounter mWorker;
#SuppressWarnings("deprecation")
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
setContentView(R.layout.activity_async_task_test);
mWorker = (AsyncTaskCounter) getLastNonConfigurationInstance();
if (mWorker != null) {
mWorker.mActivity = new WeakReference<WeakReferenceAsyncTaskTestActivity>(this);
}
progressBar = (ProgressBar) findViewById(R.id.progressBar1);
progressBar.setMax(MAX_COUNT);
}
#Override
public boolean onCreateOptionsMenu(Menu menu) {
getMenuInflater().inflate(R.menu.activity_async_task_test, menu);
return true;
}
public void onStartButtonClick(View v) {
startWork();
}
#Override
public Object onRetainNonConfigurationInstance() {
return mWorker;
}
#Override
protected void onDestroy() {
super.onDestroy();
if (mWorker != null) {
mWorker.mActivity = null;
}
}
void startWork() {
mWorker = new AsyncTaskCounter(this);
mWorker.execute();
}
static class AsyncTaskCounter extends AsyncTask<Void, Integer, Void> {
WeakReference<WeakReferenceAsyncTaskTestActivity> mActivity;
AsyncTaskCounter(WeakReferenceAsyncTaskTestActivity activity) {
mActivity = new WeakReference<WeakReferenceAsyncTaskTestActivity>(activity);
}
private static final int SLEEP_TIME = 200;
#Override
protected Void doInBackground(Void... params) {
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_COUNT; i++) {
try {
Thread.sleep(SLEEP_TIME);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Log.d(getClass().getSimpleName(), "Progress value is " + i);
Log.d(getClass().getSimpleName(), "getActivity is " + mActivity);
Log.d(getClass().getSimpleName(), "this is " + this);
publishProgress(i);
}
return null;
}
#Override
protected void onProgressUpdate(Integer... values) {
super.onProgressUpdate(values);
if (mActivity != null) {
mActivity.get().progressBar.setProgress(values[0]);
}
}
}
}
Why not just override the onPause() method in the owning Activity and cancel the AsyncTask from there?
You are absolutely right - that is why a movement away from using async tasks/loaders in the activities to fetch data is gaining momentum. One of the new ways is to use a Volley framework that essentially provides a callback once the data is ready - much more consistent with MVC model. Volley was populised in the Google I/O 2013. Not sure why more people aren't aware of this.
Personally, I just extend Thread and use a callback interface to update the UI. I could never get AsyncTask to work right without FC issues. I also use a non blocking queue to manage the execution pool.
I thought cancel works but it doesn't.
here they RTFMing about it:
""If the task has already started, then the mayInterruptIfRunning
parameter determines whether the thread executing this task should be
interrupted in an attempt to stop the task."
That does not imply, however, that the thread is interruptible. That's a
Java thing, not an AsyncTask thing."
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/dcadb1bc7705f1bb/add136eb4949359d?show_docid=add136eb4949359d
You would be better off thinking of AsyncTask as something that is more tightly coupled with an Activity, Context, ContextWrapper, etc. It's more of a convenience when its scope is fully understood.
Ensure that you have a cancellation policy in your lifecycle so that it will eventually be garbage collected and no longer keeps a reference to your activity and it too can be garbage collected.
Without canceling your AsyncTask while traversing away from your Context you will run into memory leaks and NullPointerExceptions, if you simply need to provide feedback like a Toast a simple dialog then a singleton of your Application Context would help avoid the NPE issue.
AsyncTask isn't all bad but there's definitely a lot of magic going on that can lead to some unforeseen pitfalls.
As to "experiences working with it": it is possible to kill the process along with all AsyncTasks, Android will re-create the activity stack so that the user will not mention anything.