This might not make much sense in terms of Android SDK, but, in C++ I am used to keeping my main.cpp (and specifically main() function) as a place where I declare and initialize other classes/objects, and afterwards all the things that my application does take place in those classes. I never come back and check for anything in main.cpp afterwards.
But in Java, Android SDK, you have to override dozens of methods in main activity and all of that takes place in one single file. Example:
I have a MainActivity.java and SomeTest.java files in my project, where first is default MainActivity class which extends Activity, and SomeTest.java contains class that declares and runs new Thread. I initialize SomeTest class from MainActivity.java and pass a handle of the activity to it as a parameter:
SomeTest test = new SomeTest(MainActivity.this);
And having the handle to MainActivity, I proceed doing everything from this newly created thread. When I need to update the UI I use runOnUiThread() to create and show a new ListView (for example) on my main layout. I want to get the width and height of the newly created Listview, for what I have to override onWindowFocusChanged() in my MainActivity.java and notify the thread from there, as getWidth() and getHeight() will only have values when ListView is actually displayed on the screen. For me it's not a good practice to make such connections ('callbacks', if you will) from MainActivity to that thread.
Is there a way I can keep methods like onWindowFocusChanged() within the thread and don't touch the MainActivity.java at all?
As I said, might not make much sense.
Is there a way I can keep methods like onWindowFocusChanged() within the thread and don't touch the MainActivity.java at all?
onWindowFocusChanged() is a callback method. It is called on the activity. You cannot change this.
And having the handle to MainActivity, I proceed doing everything from this newly created thread.
That's generally not a good idea. Using a background thread to, say, load some data from a file or database is perfectly reasonable (though using Loader or AsyncTask may be better). However, usually, the background thread should neither know nor care about things like "the width and height of the newly created ListView".
You are certainly welcome to migrate some logic out of the activity and into other classes. You might use particular frameworks for that, such as fragments or custom views. However, the class structure should not be driven by your threading model. For example, let's go back to your opening statement:
in C++ I am used to keeping my main.cpp (and specifically main() function) as a place where I declare and initialize other classes/objects, and afterwards all the things that my application does take place in those classes
However, in C++, you would not say that you are locked into only ever having two classes, one of which is operating on some background thread. While you may have a class or classes that happen to use a background thread (or threads), the driving force behind the class structure isn't "I have a background thread" but "I want to reuse XYZ logic" or "I wish to use a class hierarchy in support of the strategy pattern" or some such.
Personally speaking Context idea taken from Android SDK seems to be messy. What you are describing comes from too much responsibility intended for Activity. That's why you need to track a LOT of things inside single file (Activity's life cycle, getting Context instance in order to show Dialog etc.). I don't think there's perfect solution but I would recommend using:
Fragment subclasses which are helping to divide your screen (and so on logic) into seperate parts
3rd party frameworks/libraries like AndroidAnnotations, RoboGuice, Otto which are perfect tools to avoid spaghetti code
if you would like to perform some UI updates from another class, consider using an AsyncTask passing it the Views you need to update. Let me know if you need an example
I read everything and understand your statements, I can see you've been doing programming for sometime but apparently is just starting with Android, I've done a lot of embed systems before so I totally get the concept of having a software that looks like:
void run(){
object.setup();
while(true){
otherObject.run();
}
}
But there's one fundamental flaw on the you logic of your question:
Android programming is a different programming paradigm from C++ and from computer programming and you should understand its specific paradigm instead of assume what is good practice from other paradigms.
Quote from you: create and show a new ListView (for example) on my main layout. I want to get the width and height of the newly created Listview, for what I have to override onWindowFocusChanged().
From that I can see that you've really trying to do Android stuff on a way that is not recommended on an Android context. A ListView you can easily implement from the XML layout setContentView(int) and use the Activity onCreate to instantiate any threading (AsyncTaskLoader) framework to load the data in background and deliver it back to the UI.
That doesn't mean that all your code will be dumped in one file making it a mess. This little example I put you can do with Activity that implements the loader callbacks, a separate class with the loader, a separate class with the data loading work, a separate class with the data adapter, the activity is just a central piece that organise and manage those classes on the correct moment of its life-cycle and at no point you need to call onWindowFocusChanged() and still have a nicely organised code.
Apart from that please refer to CommonsWare answer as it's usually cleverly written and correct.
Related
I'm making an Android app that will have the timetables of a local bus.
There are more than one timetable, the one that will be use depends on the day.
If it's a holiday I must use a special timetable, so I want to know when is a holiday and when is not.
The thing is that I'm creating a class that will handle this, it will try to retrieve information from memory or from a web api. Then some other classes will be able to communicate with this class, but it doesn't seem necessary to me to have more than one instance of this class, I could create just one instance and share it with the rest of the classes.
Could this class be a Singleton or it would be better if I create a normal class ?
In your case (retrieving info from memory), definitely avoid using a singleton class because it will highly likely be tied to your Activity context.
Your class will have a static reference to a class, therefore
it will be kept in memory when not needed.
singleton may be reinstantiated, or may use obsolete instance, with new instations of activities. You will lose control of the current variables.
diffent instances of the same activity class are highly likely to conflict with this class.
Examples of the same activity class several instantiation:
Change device orientation.
Running app from the webbrowser's, Google Play, file browser intent.
Besides, at some point, when you add functionality based on user reviews, your app will grow, you are likely want to refactor your class, break it into subclasses, put some of its methods into separate threads. It will no longer be easy to do.
It might seem fun while the app is small, and untested, but later, in Android specifically, you will run into a nightmite with unpredictable and hard to detect errors.
Because of Android's special way to recreate activity class, through onCreate, onResume etc. you will run into a nightmare, when the app will start living its own life.
You will no longer be able to rely on the assumption that the current singleton instantiation actually belongs to your current activity.
You may swap between orientations or run your app from different entry points (launcher, recent apps, google play), and it may reuse the variables actually prepared for a different activity instantiation.
If you need only one instance of the class, just create one instance of the class in the onCreate method - and that will make the app much more manageable.
One of the main advantages a Singleton class brings you is the fact that you are sure to have one and only one instance of an object doing some thing, and that it is instantiated only once (preferably at a specific point of your application, for instance at startup or only after certain other operations have been performed)
An example could be for instance a cache implementation: you want to make sure that all classes that need a certain cache read and write from the same object, that maybe is created and filled with information at startup time.
Your does not seem to be the case, unless you fetch the information you need when your application starts and then you keep them memorized for some reason: in this case you want to make sure your information is fetched one and only one time, to avoid wasting memory and elaboration time. Also, a Singleton is fine if you need to do some kind of operation when your class is instantiated, like opening a connection that then stays open.
On the other hand, if you just need a class with some method to call some external apis or database and you don't need to memorize any information in it, there is no reason to initialize a singleton.
If this is your case, why don't you try some static class/methods? They can be called like normal methods directly on the class with no need to instantiate objects or keeping a state, saving memory and avoiding side effects.
I am working on an application in which there are some fragment classes, which can be open by two ways in the application. The first way is Main Flow , the second way is through the Navigation Drawer.
So when the fragment is called from the Navigation Drawer than it will perform some task, and if it's call from the Main Flow than it will perform another task.
How can I check the context? Is there possibility through the use of Enum class.
Note:
I don't want to send the hardcoded value through the Intent.
Firstly, you should avoid using enums in Android environment. Prefer to use #IntDef, #StringDef. The main reasoning behind this is the waste of resources. Enums take much more memory.
As Colt McAnlis shows in this perfmatters episode enums take 13x more space on rather trivial example.
Secondly, what you want to achieve may be done via Intents or Bundles, passing a boolean value from one component to another.
This is a question regarding the syntax used in Eclipse SDK while programming some JAVA code for an Android App.
I am an embedded microcontroller engineer that's mainly used to programming in Assembler (a long time ago) and C. I am a newbie when it comes C++ and JAVA and to help me write my code I have been using a mix of the developer.android.com for background info and stackoverflow.com for real world examples and have found them very useful.
So, I have no problem writing code to do what I want to do because I've always done it, but I am finding it very difficult getting my head around the syntax used in writing Android Apps.
For example to access the GPS one of my lines of code read thus:
LocationManager locationManager = (LocationManager)
this.getSystemService(Context.LOCATION_SERVICE);
but can be shortened to this:
LocationManager locationManager = (LocationManager)getSystemService(LOCATION_SERVICE);
I prefer the second version, but why were some examples written like the first example? Both seem to work fine. I've seen other examples that look even more complicated using "Class".
Secondly, is this not a complicated way to do a really simple thing:
Toast.makeText(getBaseContext(),"Hello World",Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
Why not:
Toast("Hello world");
It now takes me four times as long as it use to write code.
The line break after the cast there is just to keep the lines from getting too long.
On this:
Toast.makeText(getBaseContext(),"Hello World",Toast.LENGTH_SHORT).show();
... it would be simple to write it as you say, aexcept that doesn't do the same things. Basically, that line is
Finding the outermost enclosing place to put graphics
Setting the text you want to show, and setting some formatting or some such
and then showing it.
You want to split those up because you don't always write to the outermost world, and you may want to, for example, make several different chunks of text and show90 or hide() them later. (Think an error message and a success message, for example. You like to build them once and then show/hide the ones you don't need.)
Now, if you can define what context you want and never want to mess with the visibillty, you can make a function that does just that.
It is kind of beginner OOP-ish style to put this everywhere. It is implied in your second example, and the second example is the more common style.
Now this one has to do with a bit of engineering. Yes, your second short example could have been implemented (except that Toast is a class, not a function, but a similar thing would work), but it would preclude a lot of important things you may want to do. A Toast may not be all that lightweight of an object; you may want to cache it. That's why you first get an instance with makeText and only then call show on it. The Toast instance will also have a complete lifecycle that you need to control, but won't be able to with your simple example. The instance can probably undergo further configuration, etc. etc. In short, there's a reason for it which is not obvious from a Hello, world piece of code.
Welcome to the world of Android and Java programming. Since you come from an assembly language background, my advice is: Get used to more typing. :)
Regarding the first code fragment: First, the qualifier this. on the call to getSystemService() is redundant; you can just drop it. Secondly, you can eliminate the qualifier on LOCATION_SERVICE by statically importing the name. Add something like this to the imports for the compilation unit:
import static android.content.Context.LOCATION_SERVICE;
or, if you don't mind the namespace pollution:
import static android.content.Context.*;
Regarding the second fragment: for architectural reasons, Toast eventually needs to associate the popup window to some application context. The first argument to the factory method makeToast is what makes this possible. (By the way, you just need getContext(), not getBaseContext(). You could also stash the context in a field.) As far as the third argument to makeText—arguably, a version of the factory method could have been provided that has a default display time, but Android doesn't provide that, so you're stuck with the third argument as well. You can again avoid the qualifier by statically importing LENGTH_SHORT. Finally, the factory method just returns a Toast object. You aren't required to show() it just yet; it could be stashed and shown at a future time. It's good design to separate creating the Toast object from the action of putting it on the screen.
I will try to explain the things in the easiest way and to the best of my ability.
1. ".this" refers to the current object in Java. ".this" specifically points to the current object accessing its own instance variable members of that class.
2. Using "this" is just being more specific.
3. Now in the case of Toast, It requires the "context" parameter to point to the Activity
where it will display the Toast.(ie on which activity)
4. You can use "this" if you are not inside an Anonymous class, or if you are in an Anonymouse class then use "Your_Activity_Name.this" in place of context.
5. getBaseContext, getApplicationContext are like global access to the parts of the Application.
6. I always prefer Your_Activity_Name.this in context place. Context means the Activity, on which the Toast is going to be displayed. And yes there is No Toast(String s) method in activity.
I'm starting with Android and wonder if background Task like DB reading and saving are always encapsulated in private classes?
I mean, at the moment I have:
private class SaveToDB extends AsyncTask..
private class ReadFromDB extends AsyncTask..
public void onButtonClick(View v) {
new SaveToDB().execute();
}
And so on. This way, I always have to create a new object if I want to execute background tasks. Is that the correct way?
What I wonder is that all my private classes are "actions" itself, not really objects. As they are named eg save or read which naming normally applies to methods by convention, not to classes.
Moreover, in case I'm doing it right: is it good practice to neast the private classes inside MyApplication Activity? Or should I refacter them out into own separate classes?
You could write a service to handle all the background content management. So, when you want to save, you just message the service and tell it to write data. This is much more complicated. For simple things, you can do it exactly as you are currently.
EDIT:
Also, as Ian pointed out, take a look at the new database interfacing classes post 3.0.
If you are firing of async tasks to interact with a sqlite database, then its not the best way to do things these days, you should check out cursor loaders instead.
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals/loaders.html
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/CursorLoader.html
Once you got your head around them they are much easier than firing off async tasks, infact they build on top of async tasks to address some of the issues you describe and are tolerant to configuration changes.
I highly recommend to move away from AsyncTask (for db access) and use the Loader API instead.
Its backported in the compatibility package so you can use them in older versions prior to Honeycomb.
Not always.
For example, if you've got a task that is to be used by different activities (I'm not talking about sharing the same instance), you will want a public class so you don't write it several times.
If you only use that (class of) task in one place, private class might help keeping your code cleaner.
It is a correct way for using AsyncTask, which isntance you can execute once.
Class Name can be DbSaver isntead of SaveToDb for instance which is more readable.
If that class is used only one Activity you can nest them, why not. But if you have task which is executed within different Activities, it is a good idea to create his own file.
It is good design to loosely couple your database access from your UI code. One way to avoid having to create a new object every time would be to make the database access classes a singleton and just return the instance of the class whenever you need to make a transaction.
To your last question it is a better idea to move the database management to its own class so that it can be accessed across several activities. If you do it all in a private class then what happens when you have a new activity that need s database access?
i've started on some basic java coding with gwt, and im getting a bit concerned about the heft of my main class.
For instance - how does one compartmentalize the keyhandlers, since they trigger a number of changes to the UI, how could i move this into a separate .class file and still be able to access all the various widgets in the main class, without having to pass everything to the handler (ie. all the widgets i manipulate after the click event).
i've googled but didnt come across any particularly good examples - know of any readily legible code-bases i could read to see how it should be done? (gwt's own tuts are pretty basic, and just kitchen-sink every thing into a single file)
thanks!
I hate to say something so unimaginative, but MVC works--it's not the ultimate, but it can start getting you organized.
EDIT: While searching on a semi-related topic, I came across this which has similar ideas to mine but goes into more detail.
What that means in terms of GWT is that you should think of just laying out your GUI components in one class, put all your event handling in a second and put your object model objects separate from the other two.
One way to accomplish this is to make most or all the controls on your GUI public members. This sounds kind of lame, but their usage is encapsulated inside the controller so it's not like you have uncontrollable access--in fact your access is clearer/better defined than if all your members were private but your view code was combined with the controller.
Specific tricks:
Have listeners be their own class. You can often reuse them-- in other words, avoid anonymous inner classes. I sometimes create a listener class and instantiate a new instance for each button/control that needs to have a similar effect when pressed. If I need it to act slightly differently for a given button, I'll pass something into the constructor of the "special" handlers so that they know to act a little differently. You can also create different handler sub-classes if necessary--I'm just saying don't forget that event handlers are classes, you can use inheritance and everything if need be.
One Very Old GUI Trick I learned a long time ago, try not to have various mini-handlers modifying the GUI in different ways, instead have all the "active" buttons and controls set a state within your GUI and then call a single method that applies that state to ALL the controls on your GUI. When you get beyond a trivial GUI this can be a life-saver. If I'm not being clear, leave a comment and I'll leave an example for you.
Property sheets:
There is a special case for GUIs--the property sheet style GUI. I've done a LOT of these and they are irritating as HELL. They tend to have dozens or hundreds of controls on them, each GUI control tends to be tied to a specific field in your model and there are just hundreds of lines of copy and paste boilerplate code connecting them, each group copied and pasted with a few items changed--at minimum it's like 3 lines of code per control (Create control, copy value in and copy value out).
I always write these with a "Smart" controller--one that can intelligently bind the control to some data without any unique code. This can get tricky and if this is your problem let me know in the comments and I can give you some general advice as to some tricks you might try. I've gone from a minimal reflective solution to a full-on XML based solution. Were I to do it again, I might consider annotation-based.
Example of MVC:
Note, this is just an example, there are a MILLION ways to do MVC.
In your MAIN:
Instantiate MyView
Instantiate MyModel
Instantiate MyController(myView, myModel)
myView.setVisible(true)
in MyView
probably extends Frame
Most components are public final (public final Button b=new Button())
If public members make you nervous, use getters--same EXACT effect as public final members with a little extra syntax.
Remember that you can set final members in your constructor.
May have general methods such as reset(), but MyController may be a better place for this.
in MyController
saves references to myView and myModel
adds listeners to myView where necessary (see advice on listeners above)
configures myView based on state of myModel
when "done" button pressed, copies state from myView to myModel
notifies myModel that it's data has been updated and destroys itself.
in MyModel:
This would be a typical model class, it would contain your business logic (mostly not used as part of the GUI, that's more like GUI logic in MyController. The controller would tend to set values in your business logic then call some method like updated() to cause some business logic to take control. It should know nothing of a GUI--this is your "pure" business class.
Sometimes the GUI might call an update() or some other method to trigger some data change and then reload the GUI controls from the Model--this is a fairly good way to integrate your business logic with your GUI without your model knowing about the GUI...
Also, as I said above, I would put more work into MyController if I was working with property sheets just due to the sheer number of lines of boilerplate that you end up with if you aren't smart about it.
Note that View and Controller are nearly always paired. You can't just replace a Swing view with a web view and expect the controller to remain unmolested--but the model should not ever change for the view or controller.
You should take a look at the best practices for GWT applications first:
http://code.google.com/events/io/2009/sessions/GoogleWebToolkitBestPractices.html
One of the concepts they talk about is that of MVP (not MVC) to structure your application. There's a sample project on Google Code that you can look at to understand how to structure a GWT application in this way:
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-mvp/