Android "misses" periodical execution of Thread using ScheduledExecutorService - android

I have an android app that repeatedly collects fingerprints from the wifi-networks that are around (for scientific reasons, not to invade anybodies privacy).
Anyways, imagine I have a function that does this work and it's called scanWifi(). I initally wanted to start it like this:
ExecutorService mExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
mExecutor.scheduleAtFixedRate(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
scanWifi();
}
}, 0, interval, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
Sadly, this only works reliably when the phone is plugged in. If it's plugged out and lays there for a while, it doesn't run my scanWifi() function every minute. Sometimes there are gaps of several minutes between single calls to scanWifi().
I also tried doing the same thing using a Timer/TimerTask with similarly poor results.
The only thing that seems to work more or less reliable until now is to post it to a handler and call it repeatedly, like this:
Handler h = new Handler();
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
if (!mIsStopped) {
scanWifi();
h.postDelayed(this, mInterval);
}
}
};
h.post(r);
Why is that the case? Is the CPU sleeping and thus misses the scheduled execution? I hold a partial wakelock in my app.

I think what you're looking for is an AlarmManager. See, for example, this question: Android: How to use AlarmManager

Related

Call ExectuorService with time interval - android

i used a custom thread to fetch data in the background every 1 second by making a thread goes to sleep, but my App crashes and throws exception OutOfMemoryError. Now i read a documentation in android developer and i understand that using custom thread is bad practice as it is difficult to manage the memory consistency. but finally i found ExecutorService very interesting when we need to do some tasks on background So, i decided to use it.
As You know the ExecutorService is like below:
public void executeTask()
{
ExecutorService executroService = new Executor.newSingleThreadExecutor();
executroService.execute(new Runnable()
{
#Override
publi void run()
{
// now execute the server request
}
});
}
Now how can i achive calling to executorService every 1 second untill the user goes to onpause() state or untill the user shifts from the current activity to another activity? if i use a custom thread to call that service, the App goes to crash. so how can i achive that ?
What you need is a ScheduledExecutorService
It can schedule commands to run after a given delay,
or to execute periodically.
Here is a code that implements this
import static java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit.*;
class BeeperControl {
private final ScheduledExecutorService scheduler =
Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
public void beepForAnHour() {
Runnable beeper = () -> System.out.println("beep");
ScheduledFuture<?> beeperHandle =
scheduler.scheduleAtFixedRate(beeper, 10, 10, SECONDS);
Runnable canceller = () -> beeperHandle.cancel(false);
scheduler.schedule(canceller, 1, HOURS);
}
}

Thread vs Handler for polling

I need a polling thread to perform some network operations every 5 mins. I came up with the following two solution. Which would be better and why? I am looking to have minimum cpu and battery usage.
pollThread = new Thread(){
public void run(){
while(toggle) {
// Do stuff
sleep(FIVE_MINUTES);
}
}
};
pollThread.start();
OR
Runnable doStuffRunnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// Do stuff
handler.postDelayed(this, FIVE_MINUTES);
}
}
The answer depends on whether you are using the Handler to handle other tasks as well. If not, there won't be much difference; there will still be a thread that wakes up every 5 minutes to do what you want. If the handler also handles other tasks, using the handler is likely to be more efficient than having a separate thread for each task, as it requires only one thread, and may have optimizations with respect to processor usage.

Taking a picture with 2 secs of delay

Is there a way to take a picture two seconds after the Camera.takePicture method is invoked? For some reason, I do not want to use handler/timer to schedule the invocation of takePicture.
Precisely, I would like to use a different solution than the following one:
final Handler handler = new Handler();
Timer t = new Timer();
t.schedule(new TimerTask() {
public void run() {
handler.post(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
<here takePicture is invoked>
}
});
}
}, 2000);
You could use AlarmManager with a PendingIntent and handle taking the camera capture in your Activity.onNewIntent method, but it is a very confusing solution for what you are trying to solve (a much better use of AlarmManager is to schedule tasks so that they are performed even if the user exits your application). This solution also requires more code and is less precise/reliable and less efficient than using a Handler.
EDIT: You can also use a ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor along with a Runnable.
(Personal opinion following) If you are exploring the APIs available in Android for performing timed tasks, that is ok, but I wouldn't use AlarmManager to schedule timed tasks within an Activity that's already running.
If you just want to have the code a bit more organised, you can make an inner class that implements Runnable and schedule your action like this:
class MyCameraActivity extends Activity
{
class TakePictureTask implements Runnable
{
public void run()
{
MyCameraActivity.this.takePicture();
}
}
void scheduleCameraShot()
{
(new Handler(this.getMainLooper())).postDelayed(new TakePictureTask(), 2000);
}
}

Automatically start execution upon activity launch

I'm working on an app that synchronizes some graphic UI events with an audio track. Right now you need to press a button to set everything in motion, after onCreate exits. I'm trying to add functionality to make the audio/graphical interaction start 10 seconds after everything is laid out.
My first thought is, at the end of onCreate, to make the UI thread sleep for 10000 miliseconds using the solution here and then to call button.onClick(). That seems like really bad practice to me, though, and nothing came of trying it anyway. Is there a good way to implement this autostart feature?
Never ever put sleep/delay on UI-thread. Instead, use Handler and its postDelayed method to get it done inside onCreate, onStart or onResume of your Activity. For example:
#Override
protected void onResume() {
super.onResume();
new Handler().postDelayed(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//do whatever you want here
}
}, 10000L); //the runnable is executed on UI-thread after 10 seconds of delay
}
Handler handler=new Handler();
Runnable notification = new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
//post your code............
}
};
handler.postDelayed(notification,10000);
Yes, putting the UI thread to sleep isnt a good idea.
Try this
private final ScheduledExecutorService worker = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
worker.schedule(task, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

handler.postDelayed vs. AlarmManager vs

I have a minor problem in one of my apps. It uses a BroadCastReceiver to detect when a call finishes and then performs some minor housekeeping tasks. These have to be delayed for a few seconds, to allow the user to see some data and to ensure that the call log has been updated. I'm currently using handler.postDelayed() for this purpose:
public class CallEndReceiver extends BroadcastReceiver {
#Override
public void onReceive(final Context context, final Intent intent) {
if (DebugFlags.LOG_OUTGOING)
Log.v("CallState changed "
+ intent.getStringExtra(TelephonyManager.EXTRA_STATE));
if (intent.getStringExtra(TelephonyManager.EXTRA_STATE)
.equalsIgnoreCase(TelephonyManager.EXTRA_STATE_IDLE)) {
SharedPreferences prefs = Utils.getPreferences(context);
if (prefs.getBoolean("auto_cancel_notification", true)) {
if (DebugFlags.LOG_OUTGOING)
Log.v("Posting Handler to remove Notification ");
final Handler mHandler = new Handler();
final Runnable mCancelNotification = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
NotificationManager notificationMgr = (NotificationManager) context
.getSystemService(Service.NOTIFICATION_SERVICE);
notificationMgr.cancel(12443);
if (DebugFlags.LOG_OUTGOING)
Log.v("Removing Notification ");
}
};
mHandler.postDelayed(mCancelNotification, 4000);
}
final Handler updateHandler = new Handler();
final Runnable mUpdate = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
if (DebugFlags.LOG_OUTGOING)
Log.v("Starting updateService");
Intent newBackgroundService = new Intent(context,
CallLogUpdateService.class);
context.startService(newBackgroundService);
}
};
updateHandler.postDelayed(mUpdate, 5000);
if (DebugFlags.TRACE_OUTGOING)
Debug.stopMethodTracing();
try
{
// Stopping old Service
Intent backgroundService = new Intent(context,
NetworkCheckService.class);
context.stopService(backgroundService);
context.unregisterReceiver(this);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
Log.e("Fehler beim Entfernen des Receivers", e);
}
}
}
}
Now I have the problem, that this setup works about 90% of the time. In about 10% of cases, the notification isn't removed. I suspect, that the thread dies before the message queue processes the message/runnable.
I'm now thinking about alternatives to postDelayed() and one of my choices is obviously the AlarmManager. However, I'm not sure about the performance impact (or the resources it uses).
Maybe there is a better way to ensure that all messages have been processed before a thread dies or another way to delay the execution of those two bits of code.
Thank you
I'm currently using handler.postDelayed() for this purpose:
That's not a good idea, assuming the BroadcastReceiver is being triggered by a filter in the manifest.
Now I have the problem, that this setup works about 90% of the time. In about 10% of cases, the notification isn't removed. I suspect, that the thread dies before the message queue processes the message/runnable.
More accurately, the process is terminated, taking everything with it.
I'm now thinking about alternatives to postDelayed() and one of my choices is obviously the AlarmManager. However, I'm not sure about the performance impact (or the resources it uses).
It's not that bad. Another possibility is to do your delayed work in an IntentService -- triggered via a call to startService() -- and have it sleep on its background thread for a couple of seconds.
Let's try a new way of doing this. Using RxJava. It's much simpler to prototype and easier to manage lots of threads if you want to ever run hundreds of such delayed tasks concurrently, sequentially, coupled with async tasks, chained with synchronous chained async calls etc.
Firstly, set up the Subscriber. Remember new on Subscriber should be done only once to avoid memory leaks.
// Set up a subscriber once
private Subscuber<Long> delaySubscriber = new Subscuber<Long> () {
#Override
public void onCompleted() {
//Wrap up things as onCompleted is called once onNext() is over
}
#Override
public void onError(Throwable e) {
//Keep an eye open for this. If onCompleted is not called, it means onError has been called. Make sure to override this method
}
#Override
public void onNext(Long aLong) {
// aLong will be from 0 to 1000
// Yuor code logic goes here
// If you want to run this code just once, just add a counter and call onComplete when the counter runs the first time
}
}
The snippet below will just emit the 1 in the onNext() of the subscriber.
Note that this is done on the Computation Threadpool created and managed by the RxJava library.
//Now when you want to start running your piece of cade, define an Observable interval that'll emit every second
private Observable<Long> runThisAfterDelay = Observable.just(1).delay(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, Schedulers.computation());
// Subscribe to begin the emissions.
runThisAfterDelay.subscribe(delaySubscriber);
If you want to run a code after every one second, say, then you can do this:
private Observable<Long> runThisOnInterval = Observable.interval(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, Schedulers.computation());
In addition to the first answer, you might want to consider what the API documentation says for the onReceive method:
[...] The function is normally called within the main thread of its process, so you should never perform long-running operations in it [...]
So it looks like generally it is not a good idea to start something that waits a couple of time within onReceive (even though, in your case it's less than the 10s limit).
I had a similar timinig problem with the BroadcastReceiver. I couldn't get my results processed even though I onReceive had been called with exactly what I was exepcting. It seemed that the thread the BroadastReceiver was running in, got killed before my result processing could finish. My solutuion was to kick off a new thread to perform all processing.
AlarmManager seems not to work very well for short periods of time like 10 seconds and according to user reports the behaviour heavily depends on the firmware.
At the end I decided to use Handler and Runnable in my service.
When creating the Handler, be sure to create it inside the Service class, not inside the BroadcastReceiver since in the last case you'll get Can't create Handler inside thread that has not called Looper.prepare()
public class NLService extends NotificationListenerService {
private NLServiceReceiver nlservicereciver;
Handler delayUpdateHandler = new Handler();
private Runnable runBroadcastUpdate;
public void triggerViewUpdate() {
/* Accumulate view updates for faster, resource saving operation.
Delay the update by some milliseconds.
And if there was pending update, remove it and plan new update.
*/
if (runBroadcastUpdate != null) {
delayUpdateHandler.removeCallbacks(runBroadcastUpdate);
}
runBroadcastUpdate = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// Do the work here; execution is delayed
}
};
delayUpdateHandler.postDelayed(runBroadcastUpdate, 300);
}
class NLServiceReceiver extends BroadcastReceiver{
#Override
public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
triggerViewUpdate();
}
}
}

Categories

Resources