I'm designing an android app which will need to do the following steps:
user pushes a button or otherwise indicates to "sync data".
sync process will use REST web services to move data to and from the server.
the data will be stored locally in a sqlite database.
the sync process should provide status updates/messages to the UI
the user should not be allowed to wander off to other parts of the application and do more work during the sync process.
The first time the sync process runs, it may take 10-20 minutes.
After the initial sync, less data will be transferred and stored and
I expect the process to take 1-2 minutes or less.
I've been doing a lot of reading about android's AsyncTask and various examples of using a Service ... But I don't fully understand the design considerations and trade-offs of choosing one design over the other. I currently have my demo project stubbed out using an AsyncTask. After watching (most of) Developing Android REST client applications: http://code.google.com/events/io/2010/sessions/developing-RESTful-android-apps.html# I'm left confused the design patterns described here feel overly
complex, perhaps because I just "don't get it" yet.
I come from a java, spring, web and desktop application background. Thinking and designing in terms of a handheld device is quite new to me. (What happens when the screen layout is changed? What happens when the phone rings while I'm running a sync?) Taking 2 steps back, if the initial sync IS going to be such a long running process, is there a better way for me to think about the problem->solution, the user experience, the user expectations of an application running on a phone?
Would love to hear from some more experienced android developers out there who have already wrestled with these questions.
In my opinion this is the most tricky/hard part of a mainstream/average Android development. For instance on BlackBerry this is IN TIMES easier.
Definitely you need to use a Service.
AsyncTask does not suit, because it is tightly "bound" to your Activity via a Context handle (otherwise you would not be able to update UI of the Activity from your AsyncTask). However an Activity can be killed by OS once the Activity went in background. An example reason of going to background can be an incoming call - user switches to Phone application so your Activity becomes invisible. In this case (depending on the current RAM state) OS may decide to kill one of the background (invisible to the user) activities.
Some devs workaround this by arranging a static stuff for having a long-running actions inside of. Some recommend to use Application instance. This is because static stuff and Application exist while the whole app process exists. However those are incorrect workarounds. Processes in Android are also may be killed when OS decides it is time to. Android OS have its own considerations about what it can kill and in what order. All processes are devided to 5 levels of "killability". Here is the doc where those levels are specified. It is interesting to read there:
Because a process running a service is
ranked higher than one with background
activities, an activity that initiates
a long-running operation might do well
to start a service for that operation,
rather than simply spawn a thread —
particularly if the operation will
likely outlast the activity. Examples
of this are playing music in the
background and uploading a picture
taken by the camera to a web site.
Using a service guarantees that the
operation will have at least "service
process" priority, regardless of what
happens to the activity.
Your Activity where users initiate a long-running action should show a ProgressDialog to make sure user does not do anything else while the action is running. The guide is here.
Also, you'd most likely want to use the NotificationManager for notifying the user about your long-running action completion (or failure) if your Activity is currently invisible. Here is the NotificationManager info to start from.
There are multiple considerations that you must weigh in order to best decide how to approach your situation. It sounds like you need a good comparison between the two approaches... So here is a list of similarities, and differences and additional considerations that must be taken into account when working on a handheld device.
A Service is a part of your Application that has no UI. It may be called by a UI(Activity) to be started, or may be started by any other component of your Application. When developing, you have the freedom to place it on a different thread, or even run it in a different Task or Process. This allows you to ultimately separate it from your UI. Additionally, you may start the Service to run independently (startService) or bind your activity to it (bindService) depending upon your needs. By using custom Handlers, you can set callbacks to update the UI with your progress. A Service does not necessarily end if a User changes Activities, but may be ended at ANY time by the OS.
A AsyncTask is always instantiated from the UI thread. It only allows specific callbacks, but simplifies the process of multi-threading for the purposes of relatively short transactions (as compared to dedicated separate threaded services) that are inherently tied to actions performed by an Activity. Whenever a User changes Activities, the AsyncTask is put on "pause" and may even die because there is no UI thread for your Activity any longer.
The thing that I would be most concerned about is if the app is going to take 10-20 minutes the first time, I would ASSUME that the User will either change tasks temporarily or set the phone down until it completes (which can cause all of the same complications if the phone sleeps). Given this consideration, a threaded service bound to your activity may be your best choice. To protect your UI, I would make a Progress Dialog for your Activity that receives your progress callbacks. This limits user input in YOUR app and allows your service to continue the way that it needs to. Then override the Activity onResume to check the status of your Service and if it is running. Then you can reset the Dialog immediately.
Given that this is my preferred method, I would also take into account that the OS may kill the App at any time anyway. So make sure to have some way to detect an incomplete or partial sync. Then you may resume automatically when your Activity or Service restarts.
With AsyncTask if the user goes to another Activity you can't transfer that object to the other Activity so it dies. There are tricks you can play when say the user rotates the screen or something like that, but that doesn't extend to general purpose destruction. AsyncTask can randomly die.
Google Sync is run as a Service in the background because syncing can take a while to complete. You might need to follow their path and create your own sync service that you can communicate with. Here is some thoughts how to accomplish that:
http://mylifewithandroid.blogspot.com/2008/01/about-binders.html
You can definitely communicate between Service and Activity, but it's tricky to do it right.
The choice is mainly dependent on the app design. Since both AsyncTask and IntentService stands their ground, what you may want from the app(user experience) is more important and then choose either or both. Some scenarios are mentioned below (mostly what I experienced while developing apps)
Assume apps that have feeds pages - where more than one api calls are made to make the page presentable ( /getFriends, /getDates, /getPictures etc.) you can warp all such api calls to a single AsyncTask with executor which is multithreaded and the sequence of execution doesn't matter. In contrast to IntentService which runs all calls in sequence in a single worker thread. For a high end device with multi-core the call from AsyncTask is more effective. And if you start the AsyncTask on UI thread then updating IU is a piece of cakes(read less boiler plate code). And even if an user leaves the page, with intelligent use of not holding on to the context the app doesn't crash.
Assuming you are trying to write an app which doesn't need the user to be on view/activity/fragment and the total execution time to show something is not mission critical (assume sync service or user notification/alarm) then IntentService is a better choice. (no hassle to start Asynctask on UI thread so that you don't need to write a Handler to force changes on UI etc. etc. and less boiler plate code)
From my experience - write small app for both and compare the pros and cons to get a better idea. (p.s I'd suggest take a look at the iosched app from google to get a better idea - they use both Asynctask and IntentService)
I tend to prefer the IntentService + BroadcastReceiver combo because they give you a really strong degree of control
You definitely have to make sure the UI is running if you are updating something on the screen. ASyncTask crashes were at once reported to be one of the top causes of Android crashes. This can be avoided by keeping some sort of "activityIsAlive" variable and skipping or delaying a UI update if the activity is dead.
The IntentService + BroadcastReceiver combo is a little more resistant to the crash because most tutorials tell you to shut off the BroadcastReceiver onPause or onStop. If you do not do this, again you'll have to turn off the UI update. There's a runOnUiThread command somewhere that will help you do UI updates.
The IntentService + BroadcastReceiver combo is also more extensible. You can create functions and extend BroadcastReceiver to make a more elegant REST processing solution. However, it does require more plumbing vs an ASyncTask
If you do delay the UI update, you may be able to rig it on OnWindowFocusChangedListener. When that function receives true, it means that the UI is alive.
tldr; Make sure the Activity and/or Fragment is alive before updating the UI if you are running something in the background
2015 Edit: check out Loaders as well. A little harder to grasp because there's a lot going on behind the scenes
Related
I am mostly confused between Services and Coroutines
I don't understand why should i be using coroutines vs when should i be using Services? When i am downloading a file, do i need to use service or can i just use coroutine? Both of them can not survive process death.
And if i can download a file using coroutines, what do i need the service for at all?
Can you please list all of these and give some examples where i would want to use Service, where would i use Coroutines and where would i use WorkManager?
Also, should i be using AsyncTask at all? Because i read that it has many flaws in it and it can create memory leaks.
I also read this article about background work:
https://developer.android.com/guide/background
but it talks about only Workmanager and Coroutines but no mention of services. Why?
Background Work
https://developer.android.com/guide/background
In Android and any UI application, you have the Main Thread. If you do something heavy on the Main Thread you will block the user's interaction. So you need to do such work in another Thread. You can do this on Android using:
You create a Thread
Executor with a pool of Threads
Handler
AsyncTask
RxJava
Coroutines
App lifecycle
https://developer.android.com/guide/components/activities/process-lifecycle
But the Android application lifecycle is a complicated thing. You can't know when an application will die. It is a process that consumes some amount of resources. When the OS has no resources it will kill some applications. So you have priorities and based on them - the application is less likely to be killed. And they are part of the above link. As you can guess - if the app is visible - it is highly unlikely to die. But what if you want to finish your work, but without keeping the user engaged. This is point 3 from the link:
You can use a Service
The idea of the Services is that you can do something "in the background", but it does not mean a background Thread. It means that it is in the background for the user. The plain Services starts on the MainThread. There are specific implementations that has their own Background Thread.
And also what a Service gives you - it will make your application less likely to be killed.
WorkManager
There are many APIs in Android. During the years they become more and more. But at the same time there are more and more restrictions - with the idea that the user's battery must be saved. Also the network resources. So it is hard to pick the right API, but at the same time workaround the restrictions.
So WM was invented. It is for cases where you want your work to finish for sure at some point. Even on a device restart. But you don't care that much about timing. Uploading a video is the best example. If you want something with an exact period like every 1 hour for sure - You need to use AlarmManager. With WM it might be 1 hour, 1 hour and a half, 4 hours, 6 hours, 1 hour periods. And for the video - it might start now, you upload 30MBs and in 2 hours - the other 70Mbs.
You should use a Service when you are actively tracking or engaging with the user. Like for example Music applications, Running applications, etc.
And WM is something that underneath is using a Service, Broadcast Receivers, Room, etc. It hides a lot of complexity for you.
What is the difference between all the above?
I found various posts which were helpful but also quite confusing. According to my understanding in short this is what I came upto:
Threads are tasks that share same resources
Processes are tasks which have independent rersources. A process can
have multiple threads.
Tasks are the instructions being executed
Now this is where I get confused. How is an activity related to all
these three in android. Activity can have multiple tasks so it must be something like a process. But then what is the difference between activity and process. Moreover I read somewhere that tasks are stack of activities. It got me all confused. Ive also read that all activities run on UI thread which just make the distinction a little more confusing.
You should differentiate between Processes & Threads vs. Activities vs. Task. They aren't even really in the same category.
Let's start with the simplest one, Task's. Assuming you are not talking abouy any actual class, i.e. TimerTask, the basic concept of a Task is the following.
When a user starts your app for the first time, a new Tasks is created. You can see this by pressing the "OverviewButton", represented by a Square for the software buttons. (on Android 5.0 an higher)
A Task will not get disposed of, unless the User actually removes(swipes left/right) it from the Overview screen.
So a Task is really just a high-level abstraction for the user.
Like you alluded to, a Tasks has an Activity backstack, which is just a normal stack that is used to keep track of the "history" for the user. For example, your App is launched, your MainActivity will be at the bottom of the stack, the User enters some values and then goes on to a new Activity. Now this new Activity is above the previous one, and the user can press the "back button" at -hopefully- any time to get back to the previous activity.
Now for Processes &Thread's, a Processes under Android is very similar to a linux process, your app will usually only be working within one single process. A process gets assigned a certain part of the memory by the OS, if you're familiar with languages like C, attempting to acess memory that does not belong to your process wil cause a
"segmentation fault".
Like you said, a process may have any number of Threads, assuming the OS can manage the required Overhead.
A process will at least have one Thread, under android this is called Main-Thread or UI-Thread. Threads, very basically, allow you to do some work in parallel. You will most likely need to make use of them, for example when performing network operations.
Now for Activities, they have no direct relationship to multithreading. The currently "active Activity" is the one that is run on the UI-Thread. So all of its callbacks will be run on the UI-Thread, unless specifically documented not to.
An Activity is an abstraction used by the android framework, it exists at a fundamentally different level than a Processes & Thread's. You can call a method defined in a Activity, from any Thread you want.
A really nice question, from my little experience with android development, I'd like to contribute. Let's start from..
Processes
Ever opened task manager on windows to see open apps? Those are processes. On android, when an app is launched, a new process is opened and allocation of memory etc is given.
The activity classes,imports and threads all make a process in the Android system. sometimes you see an error message when an app crashes "unfortunately com.android.bakerapp has stopped."
This means an error causes the whole process of threads, imports, activities to close. So basically processes are parts of an app or an app in general that's running.
Activity
An activity is the heart and soul of all android apps, all Threads, preferences, views and layouts are opened by android activity class. It is the container object that holds views, passes information around and runs threads too. Activities communicate with each other through intents, objects in the class extends and methods.
Activity is the piece of code that creates and communicates UI and everything a user sees and uses. It is used to create threads. Which is discussed below.
Threads
This one is easy, a thread is basically a process to get something done, it lives and dies after its work. Imagine you have an activity with a view of picture on the screen and you want to automatically set your apps theme color to the most common color on the picture using a library.
The best method to do this without the user knowing and also confusing the main thread responsible for loading the picture into a view from a website is to open a thread using an Asynchronous task (something that runs in background) is an example of a thread.
So a thread is basically a life cycle of a task to be done, it can be continuous (Main activity views and list views) or short (Find a dominant color in a picture) or fun and multitasking (downloading a picture from a group chat while at thesame time chatting with your girlfriend on WhatsApp).
Threads are the most essential part of all activities and processes and can send,receive and process data.
Activities cannot work without threads because the setContentview and UI itself is just another thread, you can have multiple threads in one activity.
Happy coding!
https://developer.android.com/guide/components/processes-and-threads.html
I know this is old, but you can also say that a thread is the smallest unit of execution of code. Threads are scheduled to run on the CPU. A process can have one or more threads.
In the app I have an activity which has launch mode as singleTask. There are number of use cases which pass through this activity and hence it's called number of times. On stress testing the app by running monkeyrunner script and calling this activity every few seconds causes ANR's.
I guess, the way it's designed where most of the use cases pass through this activity is not correct but I am not in a position to change this design.
Is there anyway ANR's can be suppressed? I mean, adding UI operations to event queue so that it doesn't block main UI thread and doesn't give ANR.
It is unclear from the question what your activity is (or should be) doing. Probably you need a service instead.
It is common to perform time-consuming operations in background threads and deliver the results to the UI thread.
You may use the classes Handler/Looper (it it easir to send Runnables rather than messages), or use an AsyncTask. The AsyncTask is nevertheless tricky, this is discussed here: Is AsyncTask really conceptually flawed or am I just missing something? . AFAIK Google tried to fix the typical bugs and made the new behavior incompatible with the old one (namely, I have seen some misbehavior on the newer Androids that may be explained by the assumption that since some version threads doing asynctask jobs get killed after the activity that started them goes out of the screen).
I can guess that singleTask is your way to fight the fact that an activity dies when the screen turns, and a new one comes. I suggest you use singletons (they survive screen rotation but do not survive a process restart, one more thing that sometimes happens in Android). (The user switches to an app like Camera, takes a big photo, returns back -- and the activity is restarted because Camera needed memory. Have seen this in practice, but that time I did not try to find out if the whole process was restarted.)
Anyway, please add logging telling you when your activity in entered and left, including onNewIntent() and other lifecycle functions (to be on the safe side, I recommend to print the thread names as well). Then you will probably see what is going on.
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)
I was reading a article in Android developer blog Process and Threads which talks about creating new process for specific component of Application. But I failed to understand when will creating a new process in my application becomes a absolute need. Could you please help me understand following doubts I have in this regard.
When as a developer I should feel I need to have a separate process for a Android component/s?
Does introducing a new process has any side effect on application's overall performance?
Any other info is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
SKU
Having a separate process can be useful if there are components of your application that do not necessarily need to both be running to be useful to the user, and the background task is critical to application "correctness" (either now or in the future). The classic example of this is an app that has a service where the service saves or uploads some data that is critical to your application (critical meaning the only way to get the data back is to have the user re-enter it!). The service might be responsible for doing something like uploading or saving data, while the activity is just the interface for the user. So developers should decouple these two components to prevent problems that may arise from my next point..
Android was designed to run in a resource (especially memory) constrained environment, so processes deemed unimportant are killed periodically to open up memory for important ones by the "low memory killer" (LMK) (if you Google this you'll get tons of information on the topic). Things like foreground processes are understandably given a higher priority since they're currently in use, but they're sometimes killed off as well for reasons like consuming too much memory. Now, imagine you need to save off some data to a database after the user does something in the app and you use a service to do so to ensure that it is done even if the user navigates away from the app. Unless you create the service in its own process the process containing both the activity and the service is likely to be killed since the process belongs to a non-foreground activity.
However it is not always necessary to place the service in its own process, oftentimes simply giving the service its own thread will suffice; it's very application specific. I would only place a service in its own process if it took longer than maybe a few seconds (long enough for the user to navigate away from my application and for the LMK to step in) to perform some task in the background and that task related to the "correctness" of my application (I.E. saving data for later). For something like caching, stick to threads, since if the process gets prematurely killed you can just recreate that data later.
Another reason to have a separate process is if you're running a global service (a service that can be used by applications other than your own) that maybe you provide an interface with via an Activity for configuration.
As for the performance question, there will definitely be a performance hit for something like this. Interprocess communication is not cheap, so you should really only use a separate process if you fit into a specific use case, like the ones mentioned above. Also, there's a certain amount of memory overhead for maintaining a process, so that's another performance hit.
1.)You need to do something on seperate process or thread when you don't want your app to behave slowly. As by introducing threads you force your app not to run on UI thread. Thus making your app responsive to other events. For Example : you can use threads when you have to fetch some data from web service so that it happens in background and doesn't effect your app.
2.)Threads should not be used..We should use AsyncTask or loaders rather in android.
1.) In android 4.0 (and possibly 3.0, not sure though) The device does not let you use the HTTP Agent in the main thread, for this slows the UI..
This is when threads come in handy.
Also with the use of functions that need alot of cpu, if these are run in the UI thread, the UI will lag and not respond until the function finishes.
2.) as stated at 1, it will actually improve the visual performance of your app ;)