Here's scenario:
Client makes remote call to the service (returns void) and provides
a callback object
Service executes some long running logic on the background thread
and then uses callback object to trigger ether success or failure
which (since these manipulate visual elements) execute in
Activity#runOnUiThread block
The scenario runs fine. The question is - can I use AsyncTask to make
code less verbose (how?) and would be there any advantages in doing it
that way?
Or should I just get away from client callbacks alltogether and
execute remote service calls retrofitted to return some value within
AsyncTask#doInBackground?
It is difficult to say whether AsyncTask will make things less verbose, since we don't know the verbosity of your current implementation.
For me, AsyncTask means I don't have to worry about cleaning up threads myself (e.g., post some sort of kill job to a LinkedBlockingQueue my background thread is waiting on). It also eliminates the custom Job classes I used to create for using with LinkedBlockingQueues. And, it simplifies a bit doing final work back on the UI thread.
In your case, with a remote service, the UI thread issue is less critical, since the activity needs to handle that itself.
I don't see what the difference is between your #2 and your last paragraph. In both cases, your service will call the callback object, which will use something like runOnUiThread() to arrange for the work to be done on the UI thread.
AFAIK, the only two ways to have a service doing any sort of asynchronous work let the client know that work is done is by a broadcast Intent or a callback object. Broadcast Intents are convenient but public (i.e., other code can watch for them).
I suspect I probably have not helped much here, but I just don't know enough of your scenario to provide greater detail.
I'm having quite the same question : i'm developping a map activity, with a 'lazy-loading' functionnality (xml from Network, parsing it, then updating my map with the 'items' created from that parsing...)
i wondered what would be 'the best' way to implement it...
async service launched from a thread, an update notification via Intent?
just a thread (no service, since i don't need to expose it to other applications) w/ callback
asyncTask with callback
i'm comparingthese in terms of speed, using the Android SDK performance analysis Tool traceview
I guess a more precise answer might be found from Android contributors on the Android-developper-group...
Related
What is the difference between thread and service in android,when downloading an image
There are lots of difference between Normal thread and a Service
Service: Due to android component it runs on UI thread but without any view shown to user. It runs in background with the same kind of property that an activity have, like you cannot run network operations (downloading image, calling web service) in service for that you have to use Thread which will run on worker thread other than UI thread.
Thread: Its an independent path of execution which can consist network operation, complex coding, huge amount of data transfer and accept. Thread is not related to android but in android it is used to perform different task. You can download an image on Thread but to show it on any UI part you have to update downloaded image on UI thread using runOnUIThread method
Please let me know if this explanation clears your doubt. If not let me know which part you did not understand and what exactly is your question.
With rare exceptions, you should never explicitly create a Thread. Threads are expensive and prone to programmer error. Use AsyncTask because it handles the complexity of thread safety and provides the optimization of thread pooling. Or better yet, if network activity is your reason for doing work outside the main thread, use one of the many network libraries that manages all of these concerns for you. Which approach is fastest is not something that can be answered generally, and should never even be a concern until you've tried the simple and clear solution and demonstrated that its performance is inadequate.
Regardless of how you make your network activity asynchronous, any network activity that is not started and completed (or cancelled) within the lifetime of a single Activity instance needs to be hosted in something else. If it only needs to survive across configuration changes, host it in a retained Fragment. If it needs to survive between different activities, host it in a Service. When choosing between these options, remember that your Activity may be destroyed any time it goes into the background or backstack.
In the current app that I am developing with a co-worker, we're using IntentServices with Volley calls inside to process RESTful API network requests. It's just simple JSON string data, and some small images.
My question to those experienced in processing network requests is this: is there something more appropriate, or cleaner to implement out there?
From what I understand, the advantage of using an IntentService is that it runs in the background off the main thread, and is typically one of the last things killed by the Android OS. The downside being that IntentServices are run sequentially.
I've been reading a lot about RxJava, and Retrofit, and feel like our needs could be better served with that combination. Retrofit may be enough on its own, but I'd really appreciate some third-party insight.
My general rule of thumb is:
If the network I/O should be under a second, and you don't mind if it does not run to completion, any asynchronous option should be fine.
If the network I/O should be more than a second, or you really want to increase the odds that it will run to completion, use a Service. Whether you use IntentService or some other Service implementation is up to you, but you want to have a Service as an indicator to the OS that you're doing work, so it doesn't terminate your process quite so quickly once your app moves to the background. Remember that "moves to the background" is not always something initiated directly by the user, as incoming phone calls and such also move you to the background.
If the network I/O will take more than 15 seconds, not only do you need to use a Service, but you need to think about a WakeLock (via my WakefulIntentService, or WakefulBroadcastReceiver, or your own carefully-managed WakeLock) and possibly a WifiLock. 15 seconds is the minimum auto-screen-off period in Settings, which is where that figure comes from.
With all that in mind:
The downside being that IntentServices are run sequentially.
I am translating this as "an IntentService has a single thread for processing requests". This is true. In cases where you need a Service and you need parallel processing, create your own Service. Just be sure to call stopSelf() when you have no outstanding work.
I've been reading a lot about RxJava, and Retrofit, and feel like our needs could be better served with that combination
This has nothing to do with whether or not you use a Service. Just don't try doing asynchronous stuff (e.g., a Retrofit call using a Callback) from an IntentService, as you defeat the purpose of the IntentService (indicating to the OS that you're doing work). So, from an IntentService, you would use Retrofit's synchronous API, sans a Callback.
Using IntentServices just to perform a simple network request, IMO, is to much. You should use an AsyncTask if you don't want to use a library or if you prefer to go for Retrofit, Volley... (I would recommend Retrofit).
IMO, Services, or in this case IntentService are designed to execute long background tasks.
The real question is: do you load data to populate an Activity in the foreground or for doing background work, even when no UI is visible?
For background work, a Service is the way to go. You don't even need an IntentService if you rely on the threading management of Volley.
For foreground work, consider using Loaders, or Volley or Rxjava calls directly inside your Activity/Fragment.
I have a two part question. Both are somewhat general.
I'm creating an app that relies heavily on communication with a server. I plan to have different classes for each repository I'll need. Is an Android service the correct pattern to use here? There may be certain situations where I'll want to cache things between activities. Will a service allow me to do this?
Assuming a service is what I want to use for this, how can I load content once the service is bound. When the user opens the app, I want to start loading content. However, binding a service isn't blocking, so I can't write the code that makes requests with the service in my onStart() right? Is there some helper class that will wait for the service to load then execute a function? I know I could put some code in my onServiceConnected() method but I'd like to stay away from coupling like that.
Hopefully that wasn't too abstract. Thanks in advance.
Yes, Service is the way to go, but a started service, not a bound one.
You could make async request methods, and the Service can broadcast the result back to your Activity.
The async request in this case is a startService(intent) with an
Intent containing the request parameters. The service would start a background thread for the operation, optimally you can use a networking library for this (for example Volley).
And the reply is a broadcast by the Service with the relevant data.
This answers the problem of caching, because the Service can decide what to return. So in case the Service does not have the requested resource, it will download (and return) it. But if the Service has the resource, then it will just simply return the cached version.
To start, you should get yourself familiar with these topics:
Started Services (for the requests)
LocalBroadcastReceiver (for the reply)
Event Bus (alternative to LocalBroadcastReceiver, for example Otto)
I don't know much about your concrete needs, but it seems like you want to implement a REST client with cache. There is a really good Google IO presentation on that here. Definately worth to watch!
1)If you need code to run even when your Activity isn't, the correct answer is a Service. If you just need to cache data, then storing it in a global static variable somewhere may be ok.
2)Your service can start a Thread or AsyncTask. These execute in parallel. onStartCommand generally launches it in this case.
As with most things, the answer to these questions are subjective at best. I would need more information then I currently have, but I'll take a vague, general stab at this...
If you need something persistently hitting your server repeatedly I would say use a service.
Where you call it is not nearly as important as how many times it needs to be called. That being said the answer is yes. If you need this data as soon as the application or activity loads, then the onCreate method is where it needs to be loaded.
My reccomendation is either A) service or B)AsyncTask.
Go with A if you have to hit the server repeatedly for data and need it in regular intervals. Otherwise go with an AsyncTask and load all the data you need into an object for storage. Then you can use it as you need and it will essentially be "cached".
The difference between the two is simply "best tool for the job". I see you use some javascript. To give a proper analogy, using a service for a server call rather than an async task, is the equivalent of using a web socket (node js) when you could of just used an ajax call. Hope this helps. Oh and PS, please don't use static variables in Android =).
When the user logs in into my app. I am starting an asynctask to maintain the user session. And that async task is running indefinitely till the user logs out. My problem is that when I try to start other asynctasks, their doInBackground() method is never executed.
I read somewhere that if an async task is already running, we cannot start new async task. I can confirm this because when i removed the user session async task, it worked properly. Is there a workaround?
P.S.: I have already used executeOnExecutor() method. but it didn't help.
For potentially long running operations I suggest you to use Service rather than asynctask.
Start the service when the user logs in
Intent i= new Intent(context, YourService.class);
i.putExtra("KEY1", "Value to be used by the service");
context.startService(i);
And stop the service when the user logs out
stopService(new Intent(this,YourService.class));
To get to know more about Service you can refer this
Service : Android developers
Service : Vogella
To know more about asynctask vs service you can refer this
Android: AsyncTask vs Service
When to use a Service or AsyncTask or Handler?
I read somewhere that if an async task is already running, we cannot start new async task.
Yes,That is fact that you can't run more then 5 (five) AsyncTaskat same time below the API 11 but for more yes you can using executeOnExecutor.
AsyncTask uses a thread pool pattern for running the stuff from doInBackground(). The issue is initially (in early Android OS versions) the pool size was just 1, meaning no parallel computations for a bunch of AsyncTasks. But later they fixed that and now the size is 5, so at most 5 AsyncTasks can run simultaneously.
I have figure out Some Threading rules and i found one major rule is below ,
The task can be executed only once (an exception will be thrown if a second execution is attempted.)
What is definition of AsyncTask?
AsyncTask enables proper and easy use of the UI thread. This class allows to perform background operations and publish results on the UI thread without having to manipulate threads and/or handlers.
How & Where use it?
AsyncTask is designed to be a helper class around Thread and Handler and does not constitute a generic threading framework. AsyncTasks should ideally be used for short operations (a few seconds at the most.) If you need to keep threads running for long periods of time, it is highly recommended to use it.
Why you can't use multiple AsyncTask at same time ?
There are a few threading rules that must be followed for this class to work properly:
The AsyncTask class must be loaded on the UI thread. This is done automatically as of JELLY_BEAN.
The task instance must be created on the UI thread.
execute(Params...) must be invoked on the UI thread.
Do not call onPreExecute(), onPostExecute(Result), doInBackground(Params...), onProgressUpdate(Progress...) manually.
The task can be executed only once (an exception will be thrown if a second execution is attempted.)
Running multiple AsyncTasks at the same time — not possible?
Test sample of parallel excution of AsyncTasks
Try Executor
You should go with Executor that will mange your multiple thread parallel.
Executor executor = anExecutor;
executor.execute(new RunnableTask1());
executor.execute(new RunnableTask2());
...
Sample Example 1
Sample Example 2
Just like a few others here, I object to the premise of the question.
Your core problem is that you are using an AsyncTask to perform a task beyond its scope. Others have noted this too. Those who offer solutions that can mitigate your problem through low-level threads (even java.util.Concurrent is low-level which is why Scala uses Akka actors as an abstraction), Service, etc. are quite clever, but they are treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.
As for what you should be doing, you are not the first to want to maintain a user session in an Android application. This is a solved problem. The common thread (no pun intended) in these solutions is the use of SharedPreferences. Here is a straightforward example of doing this. This Stack Overflow user combines SharedPreferences with OAuth to do something more sophisticated.
It is common in software development to solve problems by preventing them from happening in the first place. I think you can solve the problem of running simultaneous AsyncTasks by not running simultaneous AsyncTasks. User session management is simply not what an AsyncTask is for.
If you are developing for API 11 or higher, you can use AsyncTask.executeOnExecutor() allowing for multiple AsyncTasks to be run at once.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/AsyncTask.html#executeOnExecutor(java.util.concurrent.Executor, Params...)
I'll share with you, what we do on our App.
To keep user Session (We use OAuth with access/refresh tokens), we create a Singleton in our Application extended class. Why we declare this Singleton inside the MainApplication class? (Thats the name of our class), because your Singleton's life will be tided to the Activity that has created it, so if your Application is running on low memory and Garbage Collector collects your paused Activities, it will release your Singleton instance because it's associated to that Activity.
Creating it inside your Application class will let it live inside your RAM as long as the user keeps using your app.
Then, to persists that session cross application uses, we save the credentials inside SharedPreferences encrypting the fields.
yes starting 2 or more asynctasks simultaneously may cause issues on some devices. i had experienced this issue few months back. i could not predict when the 2nd asyncTask would fail to run. The issue was intermittent may caused by usage of memory as i was executing ndk code in asynctask. but i remember well that it depended on memory of device.
Similar question had been asked before. I would post the link for the similar question.
AsyncTask.executeOnExecutor() before API Level 11
Some users suggest go for Service. My advice is don't go for that path yet. Using service is much more complicated. Even you are using service, you still have to deal with threading, as
Note that services, like other application objects, run in the main
thread of their hosting process. This means that, if your service is
going to do any CPU intensive (such as MP3 playback) or blocking (such
as networking) operations, it should spawn its own thread in which to
do that work....
If we can solve a problem in elegant way, don't go for the complicated way.
I would suggest that, try one of the APIs in java.util.concurrent as suggested in below
AsyncTask is designed to be a helper class around Thread and Handler
and does not constitute a generic threading framework. AsyncTasks
should ideally be used for short operations (a few seconds at the
most.) If you need to keep threads running for long periods of time,
it is highly recommended you use the various APIs provided by the
java.util.concurrent pacakge such as Executor, ThreadPoolExecutor and
FutureTask.
I can't give you any code example so far, as I do not know how you design your session managing mechanism.
If you think your long running session managing task shouldn't bind to the life cycle of your main application life cycle, then only you might want to consider Service. However, bear in mind that, communication among your main application and Service is much more cumbersome and complicated.
For more details, please refer to http://developer.android.com/guide/components/services.html, under section Should you use a service or a thread?
I'm building an Android library to collect data from the host app and send this data to an online server in the background. I realize that this would require some sort of multi-threading/use of a service/forking.
The application simply keeps adding data through library calls, and the library should handle the sending of this data in the background without disturbing the main UI.
How should I got about making this library? Should the entire library run on an Android Service? Should I just use another thread? This is my first foray into parallelism. I'm not sure what the best way to do this is.
A detailed response is appreciated.
Some of the answers aren't quite correct. Services (Android Service component) are NOT made to run in the background, they run in the default UI thread.
In all honesty, the question shouldn't be service or thread or anything. Your library does NOT need to kick start a service, it could simply be a class (singleton/static, whatever it is) that should extend AsyncTask (or anything else running in the background that I'll explain in a bit) and use the doInBackground method to send stuff to the server. Note AsyncTask is nothing but a Thread internally. So here's what I would do:
Let's call your library's main class that interfaces with your server ServerHelper. You can make this a singleton (or static but that's a separate discussion). Within this class create an innerclass say ServerHelperCommandTask and extend AsyncTask. You really should review AsyncTask in detail to understand how that works. Because you would be asked to override doInBackGround. Anything you put in this method will autmoatically get exectued in a separate thread off the UI. Then a callback is invoked called onPostExecute that you can override as you will get the result from doInBackground here. This OnPostExecute is called in the mainThread so you can check for say error results here, etc etc.
This would be the simplest method; however, there are many other methods and libraries that help you with networking and deal with all the background stuff internally. Google just release a library called Volley which you may be able to plugin and use as it would do all the parallel processing for you. But that may take a bit of learning curve. Hope you understand AsyncTasks as in your case if the data pushed isn't a lot, then AsyncTasks is the way to go. Also note that you can call multiple AsyncTasks but while that seems on the surface that it is kicking off multiple parallel threads, that isn't quite accurate since honeycomb as internally you can call 5 Asynctasks but all 5 of those tasks will be executed sequentially so you wouldn't have to worry much about serializing.
Service would be a more reliable solution for situation You described.
I mean running background threads from service, not from Activity. Service itself does not provide separate thread by default, by the way.
The point is that Services have higher priority than acitivities so they will be destroyed with less probabilty, so your long-running task won't be interrupted.
You could do both but here's pros and cons for each solution :
Services are made to run in the background, even when your app is not in the foreground. sers usually don't like having services running for nothing.
From your description it seems that you would only need to have this thread running when the app is in foreground right ?
If so, a normal thread could do the job.
However, a service might be easier to implement.
Hope it helps
You should definitely use a Service in this situation. Async tasks and manually creating a thread is not really suitable for computations that need to run in the background for network communication. Use the Async task for long running local computations (e.g. for an algorithm doing sorting).
Note that if you use a service, it will by nature NOT run as a background thread! You need to handle threading manually. In order to save yourself from this hassle (especially if it is your first time with multi-threading) use an IntentService!
The IntentService may be invoked using the startService method as with any other service, but the IntentService class is able to handle multiple invocations as in a producer/consumer pattern. This means that you can queue commands automatically to the service just using the startService method. In the IntentService class that you make, you can then handle different types of commands by looking at the given action inside of the intent that is sent along as a parameter in the startService method.
Here is an example of how the implementation of an IntentService:
public class SimpleIntentService extends IntentService {
public SimpleIntentService() {
super("SimpleIntentService");
}
#Override
protected void onHandleIntent(Intent intent) {
String commnad = intent.getAction();
//handle your command here and execute your desired code depending on this command
}
}