I know that Activities are designed to represent a single screen of my application, while Fragments are designed to be reusable UI layouts with logic embedded inside of them.
Until not long ago, I developed an application as it said that they should be developed.
I created an Activity to represent a screen of my application and used Fragments for ViewPager or Google Maps. I rarely created a ListFragment or other UI that can be reused several times.
Recently I stumbled on a project that contains only 2 Activities one is a SettingsActivity and other one is the MainActivity. The layout of the MainActivity is populated with many hidden full screen UI fragments and only one is shown. In the Activity logic there are many FragmentTransitions between the different screens of the application.
What I like about this approach is that because the application uses an ActionBar, it stays intact and does not move with the screen switching animation, which is what happens with Activity switching. This give a more fluent feel to those screen transitions.
So I guess what I'm asking is to share your current development manner regarding this topic, I know it might look like an opinion based question at first look but I look at it as an Android design and architecture question... Not really an opinion based one.
UPDATE (01.05.2014): Following this presentation by Eric Burke from Square, (which I have to say is a great presentation with a lot of useful tools for android developers. And I am not related in any way to Square)
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Android-Design/
From my personal experience over the past few months, I found that the best way to construct my applications is to create groups of fragments that come to represent a flow in the application and present all those fragments in one Activity. So basically you will have the same number of Activities in your application as the number of flows.
That way the action bar stays intact on all the flow's screens, but is being recreated on changing a flow which makes a lot of sense. As Eric Burke states and as I have come to realize as well, the philosophy of using as few Activities as possible is not applicable for all situations because it creates a mess in what he calls the "God" activity.
Experts will tell you: "When I see the UI, I will know whether to use an Activity or a Fragment". In the beginning this will not have any sense, but in time, you will actually be able to tell if you need Fragment or not.
There is a good practice I found very helpful for me. It occurred to me while I was trying to explain something to my daughter.
Namely, imagine a box which represents a screen. Can you load another screen in this box? If you use a new box, will you have to copy multiple items from the 1st box? If the answer is Yes, then you should use Fragments, because the root Activity can hold all duplicated elements to save you time in creating them, and you can simply replace parts of the box.
But don't forget that you always need a box container (Activity) or your parts will be dispersed. So one box with parts inside.
Take care not to misuse the box. Android UX experts advise (you can find them on YouTube) when we should explicitly load another Activity, instead to use a Fragment (like when we deal with the Navigation Drawer which has categories). Once you feel comfortable with Fragments, you can watch all their videos. Even more they are mandatory material.
Can you right now look at your UI and figure out if you need an Activity or a Fragment? Did you get a new perspective? I think you did.
My philosophy is this:
Create an activity only if it's absolutely absolutely required. With the back stack made available for committing bunch of fragment transactions, I try to create as few activities in my app as possible. Also, communicating between various fragments is much easier than sending data back and forth between activities.
Activity transitions are expensive, right? At least I believe so - since the old activity has to be destroyed/paused/stopped, pushed onto the stack, and then the new activity has to be created/started/resumed.
It's just my philosophy since fragments were introduced.
Well, according to Google's lectures (maybe here, I don't remember) , you should consider using Fragments whenever it's possible, as it makes your code easier to maintain and control.
However, I think that on some cases it can get too complex, as the activity that hosts the fragments need to navigate/communicate between them.
I think you should decide by yourself what's best for you. It's usually not that hard to convert an activity to a fragment and vice versa.
I've created a post about this dillema here, if you wish to read some further.
Since Jetpack, Single-Activity app is the preferred architecture. Usefull especially with the Navigation Architecture Component.
source
Why I prefer Fragment over Activity in ALL CASES.
Activity is expensive. In Fragment, views and property states are separated - whenever a fragment is in backstack, its views will be destroyed. So you can stack much more Fragments than Activity.
Backstack manipulation. With FragmentManager, it's easy to clear all the Fragments, insert more than on Fragments and etcs. But for Activity, it will be a nightmare to manipulate those stuff.
A much predictable lifecycle. As long as the host Activity is not recycled. the Fragments in the backstack will not be recycled. So it's possible to use FragmentManager::getFragments() to find specific Fragment (not encouraged).
In my opinion it's not really relevant. The key factor to consider is
how often are you gonna reuse parts of the UI (menus for example),
is the app also for tablets?
The main use of fragments is to build multipane activities, which makes it perfect for Tablet/Phone responsive apps.
Don't forget that an activity is application's block/component which can be shared and started through Intent! So each activity in your application should solve only one kind of task. If you have only one task in your application then I think you need only one activity and many fragments if needed. Of course you can reuse fragments in future activities which solve another tasks. This approach will be clear and logical separation of tasks. And you no need to maintain one activity with different intent filter parameters for different sets of fragments. You define tasks at the design stage of the development process based on requirements.
There's more to this than you realize, you have to remember than an activity that is launched does not implicitly destroy the calling activity. Sure, you can set it up such that your user clicks a button to go to a page, you start that page's activity and destroy the current one. This causes a lot of overhead. The best guide I can give you is:
** Start a new activity only if it makes sense to have the main activity and this one open at the same time (think of multiple windows).
A great example of when it makes sense to have multiple activities is Google Drive. The main activity provides a file explorer. When a file is opened, a new activity is launched to view that file. You can press the recent apps button which will allow you to go back to the browser without closing the opened document, then perhaps even open another document in parallel to the first.
Thing I did: Using less fragment when possible. Unfortunately, it's possible in almost case. So, I end up with a lot of fragments and a little of activities.
Some drawbacks I've realized:
ActionBar & Menu: When 2 fragment has different title, menu, that
will hard to handle. Ex: when adding new fragment, you can change action bar title, but when pop it from backstack there is no way to restore the old title. You may need an Toolbar in every fragment for this case, but let believe me, that will spend you more time.
When we need startForResult, activity has but fragment hasn't.
Don't have transition animation by default
My solution for this is using an Activity to wrap a fragment inside. So we have separate action bar, menu, startActivityForResult, animation,...
The one big advantage of a fragment over activity is that , the code which is used for fragment can be used for different activities. So, it provides re-usability of code in application development.
use one activity per application to provide base for fragment
use fragment for screen ,
fragments are lite weight as compared to activites
fragments are reusable
fragments are better suited for app which support both phone & tablet
You are free to use one of those.
Basically, you have to evaluate which is the best one to your app. Think about how you will manage the business flow and how to store/manage data preferences.
Think about, how Fragments store garbage data. When you implement the fragment, you have a activity root to fill with fragment(s). So, if your trying to implement a lot of activities with too much fragments, you have to consider performance on your app, coz you're manipulating (coarsely speaks) two context lifecycle, remember the complexity.
Remember: should I use fragments? Why shouldn't I?
regards.
I use Fragments for better user experience. For example if you have a Button and you want to run let's say a webservice when you click it, I attach a Fragment to the parent Activity.
if (id == R.id.forecast) {
ForecastFragment forecastFragment = new ForecastFragment();
FragmentManager fm = getSupportFragmentManager();
FragmentTransaction ft = fm.beginTransaction();
ft.replace(R.id.main_content, forecastFragment);
ft.addToBackStack("backstack");
forecastFragment.setArguments(b);
ft.commit();
}
In that way the user won't have to move in another activity.
And secondly I prefer Fragments because you can handle them easily during rotation.
It depends what you want to build really. For example the navigation drawer uses fragments. Tabs use fragments as well. Another good implementation,is where you have a listview. When you rotate the phone and click a row the activity is shown in the remaining half of the screen. Personally,I use fragments and fragment dialogs,as it is more professional. Plus they are handled easier in rotation.
Almost always use fragments. If you know that the app you are building will remain very small, the extra effort of using fragments may not be worth it, so they can be left out. For larger apps, the complexity introduced is offset by the flexibility fragments provide, making it easier to justify having them in the project.
Some people are very opposed to the additional complexity involved with fragments and their lifecycles, so they never use them in their projects. An issue with this approach is that there are several APIs in Android that rely on fragments, such as ViewPager and the Jetpack Navigation library. If you need to use these options in your app, then you must use fragments to get their benefits.
Excerpt From: Kristin Marsicano. “Android Programming: The Big Nerd Ranch Guide, 4th Edition.” Apple Books.
Some wrong ideas:
Always put an activity in your app and handle different screens with fragments.
Write the UI code directly in the activity.
Handle navigating between screens (I don't mean tabs, I mean for example full-screen views) by fragments.
Activities can be replaced by fragments.
Here is the thing!
Fragments are designed to implement reusable parts of UI and use them in any part of the app that is needed. They are not designed for substituting activities.
When we must use each of them?
When we have an independent screen in which there are some different UI parts (tabs, expandable screens, partial screens, etc...) we should use an activity with some fragments to implement and handle different UI parts separately in the same screen.
Each independent part of the application is actually a component that is conceptually different from other parts and it needs to have an independent activity. For example, the login part may contain some different scenarios like using username-password or using fingerprint. Each scenario can be implemented by a fragment and all login-related fragments should be handled by LoginActivity. But for example, the part of the orders in the application doesn't have a conceptual relationship with login, so it must have a different activity and of course, it may contain some fragments like OrdersFragment, SubmitNewOrderFragment, and etc that all of them must be managed by OrdersActivity.
Do not implement a UI directly in an activity. Always implement UI in fragments and add those fragments in the activity even if there is only one fragment in that activity. It helps you to have more reusable code and change UIs easier.
Never use fragments to navigate infinitely in the application even if you force the user to have a limited number of fragments in the back stack. The fact is that when you add a new fragment into the back stack and remove it, it will not be removed from the memory unless the parent activity gets destroyed and it is only not visible. So when you are using fragment manager back stack, by navigating multiple times between fragments in the same activity (especially in the case of you create a new fragment on each navigation and put them into the back stack) you will get an OutOfMemoryException in the application.
I hope it to be helpful.
This question needs to be reevaluated since Jetpack Compose has reached stable.
Jetpack Compose is Android’s recommended modern toolkit for building
native UI.
from https://developer.android.com/jetpack/compose
The typical jetpack-compose architecture is:
Single Activity, multiple composables, and glued together by jetpack navigation.
Note there's no (need for) Fragments anymore.
See Now in Android for a sample.
I'm currently developing a little application that uses a login screen and a main screen. I'd been watching how another developers had been made the screen switch, some developers adds and remove fragments on run time, anothers have an Activity for each view (in my case that will be a MainActivity with the main_activity layout, and the LoginActivity with the login_activity layout). And I don't know wich is the way to go. I think that have a fragment for each view will be the solution with more sense, but I want to listen some opinions before continue.
There might be others who disagree with me, but in my opinion, Fragments are better suited when you want to keep a part of the screen static and change something in the other part (analogous to AJAX in websites).
Activities should be used for individual views in those cases where there is only one thing happening on the application front-end.
On the other hand if you have a Gmail like layout (with static links to Inbox, Sent, etc. on the left hand side and a dynamic list of mails on the right hand side of the screen), Fragments is the answer.
But since you have two different screens for layout and main, in my opinion, it would be neat if you used different Activities for the layouts and used Intents to navigate around.
For two completely different Activitys such as Login and Main I think you want to use two different Layouts and two separate Activitys and no need for fragments. However, you may want to use fragments inside any of them as #swayam suggested depending on what you want to do inside of them. You need to look at the docs and decide which is better suited for your needs. No one can really decide that for you.
Activity
Fragments
This question already has answers here:
Dilemma: when to use Fragments vs Activities:
(17 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I often need the different parts of my applications to have their own special behavior and UI, and I don't know how fragments can help. In most cases, I think it is quicker to create 2 different activities (e.g., 1 for tablets and 1 for handsets), and to share the common behaviors and events in a third class.
So, keeping this in mind, why should I use fragments ?
Fragments are more of a UI benefit in my opinion. It's convenient for the user sometimes to see two different views of two different classes on the same screen. If, in your moment of creativity, you decide it would be nice to display your application with, say, a listView that takes up half the screen and a webView that takes up the other half - so that when you click on a list item in fragment A it passes an intent to the webView in fragment B, and suddenly you see what you just clicked without the app switching activities - then you could use a fragment. That's just an example I came up with off the top of my head.
Bottom line: Fragments are two or more activities on the screen at the same time.
The benefits I see when using fragments are:
Encapsulation of logic.
Better handle of the lifecycle of the fragment.
Reusable in other activities.
The drawbacks I see are:
More code(For example, instantiating a fragment manager, adding the fragment transaction, writing the callbacks of the fragment)
Communication between fragments and activities is harder. As #jonney said it, you would need to deal with a parcelable interface to serialize your objects you wish to pass.
So, when deciding to use a fragment, I would ask myself the following questions:
Is the lifecycle of the fragment different from the activity's lifecycle?
If the lifecycle is different, you get better handling of the lifecycle using a fragment. For example, if you want to destroy the fragment, but not the activity. Such is the case, when you have a pager adapter.
Is the fragment going to be used in several activities?
The user input events will be reusable if you use a fragment.
Is the amount of communication between the fragment and the activity small?
If you need to pass big objects to the fragment, you would need to deal with the code that serializes them. Also, if you need to communicate between fragment and activity, you would probably need to implement interfaces. This, in most cases, adds complexity to your codebase. It's not a difference maker, but a criteria to take into account.
Google advises you to ALWAYS use Fragments.
Why? It's simple:
In the simplest case, Fragments are used like containers of activities.
Why do you need this? Again, it's simple.
Android 4 (ICS) supports both Smartphones and Tablets. This means the SAME application will be running on a smartphone and a tablet and they are likely to be very different.
Tablets have big screens which will be empty or unused - unless you assign it properly.
That means- Putting two fragments on one activity like Contact List and Contact Info.
The smatphone will display contact List, and on a touch- display the contact's Info.
On a tablet, the user will still see the list and the info will be next to it.
2 fragments- on one screen....
Smart? yes... supposed to be back compatible down to Android 1.6......
#############################################################
O.K, Already Knew That? then - just try to understand the case solved:
A lot of things work that way- list & details, Menus and Sub-Menus, Info, Detailed Info and some more detailed info.
You want a way to keep it natural and smooth for a tablet which you expect to preform that way, but can't expect smartphone to display it all like the tablet did...
Get it?
for more Information, check out this.
I really think you just need to catch the concept....
Historically each screen in an Android app was implemented as a separate Activity. This creates a challenge in passing information between screens because the Android Intent mechanism does not allow passing a reference type (i.e. object) directly between Activities. Instead the object must be serialized or a globally accessible reference made available.
By making each screen a separate Fragment, this data passing headache is completely avoided. Fragments always exist within the context of a given Activity and can always access that Activity. By storing the information of interest within the Activity, the Fragment for each screen can simply access the object reference through the Activity.
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/244771/why-use-android-fragments
Fragment primary support more dynamic & Large UI Screen like Tablet.Because Tablet screen is much larger than normal Handset. There is more room to combine & Interchange UI Component.
Fragment allow such design without the need for such complex change in the View hierarchy.
By divide activity layout in fragment, we become able to modify activity's appearance at runtime
I am working on an Android app that has multiple screens the user will need to navigate between and I am curious what the best practices are when switching between those screens. I am torn between creating a new Activity for each screen and simply changing the view (setContentView(R.layout.whatever)). The screens all share at least some variable values so I'm leaning toward changing views and using class level variables, but I'm worried a single activity could become very large and confusing with logic for multiple screens in a single file. I'd like to keep the code clean and separated, but I also don't want to be passing several variables around between views if that isn't needed.
Being new to Android development, I'm hoping some more experienced members of the community could share their thoughts and let me know how best to handle it.
Thanks!
Note:
I wasn't planning on using a viewflipper. My thought was to use a button click event and then call setContentView() to a new view for the page I wanted to bring up next.
Example: My application starts up using R.layout.main as it's view. User clicks the Help button and it calls a method that runs setContentView(R.layout.help); to display the help screen as opposed to switching to a help activity.
You should use an activity per screen as this will make the best use of the framework and allow the OS to selectively kill off screens if things get tight.
If you have a single activity and resources get tight the OS has two choices; kill everything or kill nothing, and if the user is not using your app then it's most likely it'll kill everything.
If you use an Activity per screen the OS can kill off some of the screens the user hasn't visited for a while, whilst still allowing others to remain active which allows the user to go back to them quickly.
As for sharing variables and values, you could use the SQLite database or SharedPreferences stores for passing them around if they are widely shared, or use the putExtra methods in Intent if they're only of use from one screen to the next.
If you have variables that you will reuse make a base class for them, that you will extend.
This can be a your custom activity that extends Activity.
As far I can tell you have to create separate activities for each views, only a few situation can be handled by viewflippers.
Which you think is the best way of doing a wizard like application (user can navigate between screens with a next and back button, and each screen has to save some state data) in Android platform.
I mainly can think in two approaches:
Having one activity+view for each screen and then i make the screen switch by calling each activity. What make this nice is that i can use the system back button as my back handler and i don't have to take care of that myself, aslo each activity will save it's own state.
Having one activity and many views, and what i switch views in each screen change, this helps me re-use more code, but makes saving states a mess.
What do you think? Which is the best way of doing this on Android?
This library is no longer being developed.
Use Android Navigation Component with combination of ViewModels to build a wizard flow.
I've developed a lightweight Android library, which is built on top of Android's ViewPager that can be used for creating wizard like activities. Check it out: WizarDroid.
I suggest going with 2 as it fits the goal of activities and views. Saving state in this case is easy - if you use the MVC pattern, you can simply have a model object that is passed along to the views. Each view will have portions of the model that it can read/write. No matter where you are, the model should always have the current state. If you get disposed, just save the model. Restore works automatically since you already read from the model when you show each page.
I've gone with the first approach as it seems more natural. Another app uses ViewFlipper for switching views but that's far from anything like wizard.
9 years ago this was obviously a very different kettle of fish - but I think the best way to do this now is with Fragments.
Have a Fragment for each 'page' in the wizard, letting it handle its own lifecycle and state.
Change page from within each Fragment with Fragment.getFragmentManager() - this returns the FragmentManager from the parent Activity, allowing the Fragment to replace itself.
I think 2 is better. Put each "page" in a view and then just alternate between showing and hiding them. Makes it trivial to do nice transitions. What state are you thinking of maintaining? The only one that doesn't work automatically would be focus and I think you probably want to reset that every time you switch pages. It is also trivial to catch back if you think that is the right behavior for your app.
With 1 you can reuse almost all of your code (just define your own WizardBase class) but I think activities are much slower to launch (and require more memory) than switching between views.