I have a naive question, I have read about the flutter dependency injection package get_it, it registers all the instances at start like the service locator design pattern, my question is how it deals with a garbage collector and when it frees the objects? Does it store all the instances in memory at start till app lifeCycle?
To be honest, I know very little about Service locator design pattern otherwise I might have understood this package clearly, Now I need your help on how it works under the hood? what if we need to register an instance at run time with some dynamic data coming from API then how can we do that?
Your help will be appreciated thanks in advance
Per the documentation, you can unregister a previously registered instance as follows:
/// Unregister an [instance] of an object or a factory/singleton by Type [T] or by name [instanceName]
/// if you need to dispose some resources before the reset, you can
/// provide a [disposingFunction]. This function overrides the disposing
/// you might have provided when registering.
void unregister<T>({Object instance,String instanceName, void Function(T) disposingFunction})
Service objects are often need throughout the life of an application, in which case you'll never need to unregister.
In my Play app, I do this in Module.configure():
bind(classOf[GadgetsReader]).toInstance(GadgetsCsvReader)
bind(classOf[Gadgets]).asEagerSingleton()
Then, I do this:
#Singleton
class Gadgets #Inject()(reader: GadgetsReader) {
val all:Seq[Gadget] = reader.readGadgets()
}
That synchronously loads a large collection of gadgets from a CSVfile into memory on startup, in a Play's rendering thread.
I did not see a similar scenario implemented anywhere in Play examples. I would like to know whether what I am doing is idiomatic Scala & Play.
Is it OK to load a very large file synchronously like this, given that I don't want any requests served until the data is fully loaded?
Is it a good thing that I created aGadgets class and then injected it, as opposed to a static/object method Gadget.all?
Should Gadget and Gadgets classes live under model?
Any other comments would be appreciated, too.
I guess it depends how large, how fast you want your startup to be, etc. In general, I'd say yes, even Akka's cluster sharding has (or at least, last I read, had) a blocking call that waits for initialisation to complete before returning. In your case it's probably fine, but one gotcha with blocking calls like this is blocking generally means doing IO, and IO can fail (eg, what if you're reading from a network filesystem, and the network fails when you're starting up?). So sometimes, it's better to design your app so that it's capable of responding (perhaps with a not available status) without the operation having being done yet, and do that operation asynchronously, with retries etc in case it fails. But perhaps this is overkill in your case.
To answer your other questions - yes, it is definitely better to dependency inject Gadgets than use a static singleton, this means you can control how Gadgets is created (perhaps you might want to initialise it differently in tests).
It's probably fine to be in the model package, but this is greatly dependent on your domain and what it looks like.
I'm using an Autofac container for the entire lifetime of my application, but I want to dispose the components myself.
I.E if I have builder.RegisterType<SomeType>(), I don't want the container to keep references of SomeType which will keep those alive even if not referenced anywhere else (if RegisterInstance is used OTOH, then of course the container must keep a reference to the singleton).
I can see that I can do builder.RegisterType<SomeType>().ExternallyOwned() which solves my problem for one type, but I don't want to write it for every type, and more importantly I also use builder.RegisterSource(new AnyConcreteTypeNotAlreadyRegisteredSource()); which doesn't give me the option of using ExternallyOwned.
Is there a way to specify "ExternallyOwned" for the entire container? Or, to put it another way, tell the container to disable the entire dispose feature and not keep references for objects it doesn't need?
There is not a way to disable container disposal services. You might try to hook in with something like the logging module but I could see that not working 100% and missing edge cases of you're not careful.
Automatic tracking and disposal is a pretty common container feature. I'd recommend instead of fighting it you refactor your code to embrace it. It'll make life a lot easier.
I'm reading this article on how to : correctly retain variable state in Android and I'm reminded that I've never gotten a good answer (and can't find one here) for why it's better to tussle with the Bundle (which isn't a HUGE hassle, but definitely has its limitations) rather than just always have an Application overridden in your App, and just store all your persistent data members there. Is there some leakage risk? Is there a way that the memory can be released unexpectedly? I'm just not clear on this... it SEEMS like it's a totally reliable "attic" to all the Activities, and is the perfect place to store anything that you're worried might be reset when the user turns the device or suspends the app.
Am I wrong on this? Would love to get some clarity on what the true life cycle of the memory is in the Application.
Based on the answers below, let me extend my question.
Suppose I have an app that behaves differently based on an XML file that it loads at startup.
Specifically, the app is a user-info gathering app, and depending on the XML settings it will follow an open ended variety of paths (collecting info A, but not J, and offering Survey P, followed by an optional PhotoTaking opportunity etc.)
Ideally I don't have to store the details of this behavior path in a Bundle (god forbid) or a database (also ugly, but less so). I would load the XML, process it, and have the Application hold onto that structure, so I can refer to it for what to do next and how. If the app is paused and the Application is released, it's not *THAT big a hassle to check for null in my CustomFlow object (that is generated as per the XML) and re-instantiate it. It doesn't sound like this would happen all that often, anyway. Would this be a good example of where Application is the *best tool?
The question as to which method is better largely depends upon what information you are storing and need access to and who (which components, packages, etc.) needs access to that information. Additionally, settings like launchMode and configChanges which alter the lifecycle can help you to determine which method is best for you.
First, let me note, that I am a huge advocate for extending the Application object and often extend the Application class, but take everything stated here in its context as it is important to understand that there are circumstances where it simply is not beneficial.
On the Lifecycle of an Application: Chubbard mostly correctly stated that the Application has the same life as a Singleton component. While they are very close, there are some minute differences. The Application itself is TREATED as a Singleton by the OS and is alive for as long as ANY component is alive, including an AppWidget (which may exist in another app) or ContentResolver.
All of your components ultimately access the same object even if they are in multiple Tasks or Processes. However, this is not guaranteed to remain this way forever (as the Application is not ACTUALLY a Singleton), and is only guaranteed in the Google Android, rather than the manufacturer overridden releases. This means that certain things should be handled with care within the Application Object.
Your Application object will not die unless all of your components are killed as well. However, Android has the option to kill any number of components. What this means is that you are never guaranteed to have an Application object, but if any of your components are alive, there IS an Application to associate it to.
Another nice thing about Application is that it is not extricably bound to the components that are running. Your components are bound to it, though, making it extremely useful.
Things to Avoid in Application Object:
As per ususal, avoid static Contexts. In fact, often, you shouldn't store a Context in here at all, because the Application is a Context itself.
Most methods in here should be static, because you are not guaranteed to get the same Application object, even though its extremely likely.
If you override Application, the type of you data and methods store here will help you further determine whether you need to make a Singleton component or not.
Drawables and its derivatives are the most likely to "leak" if not taken care of, so it is also recommended that you avoid references to Drawables here as well.
Runtime State of any single component. This is because, again, you are not guaranteed to get back the same Application object. Additionally, none of the lifecycle events that occur in an Activity are available here.
Things to store in the Application (over Bundle)
The Application is an awesome place to store data and methods that must be shared between components, especially if you have multiple entry points (multiple components that can be started and run aside from a launch activity). In all of my Applications, for instance, I place my DEBUG tags and Log code.
If you have a ContentProvider or BroadcastReceiver, this makes Application even more ideal because these have small lifecycles that are not "renewable" like the Activity or AppWidgetProvider and can now access those data or methods.
Preferences are used to determine, typically, run options over multiple runs, so this can be a great place to handle your SharedPreferences, for instance, with one access rather than one per component. In fact, anything that "persists" across multiple runs is great to access here.
Finally, one major overlooked advantage is that you can store and organize your Constants here without having to load another class or object, because your Application is always running if one of your components is. This is especially useful for Intent Actions and Exception Messages and other similar types of constants.
Things to store in Bundle rather than Application
Run-time state that is dependent upon the presence or state of a single component or single component run. Additionally, anything that is dependant upon the display state, orientation, or similar Android Services is not preferrable here. This is because Application is never notified of these changes. Finally, anything that depends upon notification from that Android System should not be placed here, such as reaction to Lifecycle events.
And.... Elsewhere
In regard to other data that needs to be persisted, you always have databases, network servers, and the File System. Use them as you always would have.
As useful and overlooked as the Application is, a good understanding is important as it is not ideal. Hopefully, these clarifications will give you a little understanding as to why gurus encourage one way over the other. Understand that many developers have similar needs and most instruction is based on what techniques and knowledge a majority of the community has. Nothing that Google says applies to all programmer's needs and there is a reason that the Application was not declared Final.
Remember, there is a reason Android needs to be able to kill your components. And the primary reason is memory, not processing. By utilizing the Application as described above and developing the appropriate methods to persist the appropriate information, you can build stronger apps that are considerate to the System, the User, its sibling components AND other developers. Utilizing the information that everyone here has provided should give you some great guidance as to how and when to extend your Application.
Hope this helps,
FuzzicalLogic
I prefer to subclass Application and point my manifest to that. I think that's the sane way of coding android although the Android architects from Google think you should use Singletons (eek) to do that. Singletons have the same lifetime as Application so everything that applies to them applies to Application except much less dependency mess Singletons create. Essentially they don't even use bundles. I think using subclass Application has dramatically made programming in Android much faster with far less hassle.
Now for the downside. Your application can be shutdown should the phone need more memory or your Application goes into the background. That could mean the user answered the phone or checked their email. So for example, say you have an Activity that forces the user to login to get a token that other Activities will use to make server calls. That's something you might store in your service object (not android service just a class that sends network calls to your server) that you store in your subclass of Application. Well if your Application gets shutdown you'll loose that token, and when the user clicks the back button your user might return to an Activity that assumes you are already authenticated and boom your service class fails to work.
So what can you do? Continue to use Bundle awfulness? Well no you could easily store security tokens into the bundle (although there might be some security issues with that depending on how this works for your app), or you have to code your Activities to not assume a specific state the Application is in. I had to check for a loss of the token and redirect the user back to the login screen when that happens. But, depending on how much state your Application object holds this could be tricky. But keep in mind your Application can know when it's being shutdown and persist it's internal state to a bundle. That at least allows you to keep your Objects in memory for 99% of the time your Application, and only save/restore when it gets shutdown rather than constantly serializing and deserializing with boiler plate code whenever you move between Activities. Using Application lets you centralize how your program can be brought up and shutdown, and since it normally lives longer than any one activity it can reduce the need for the program to reconstitute the guts of your App as the user moves between Activities. That makes your code cleaner by keeping out details of the app from every Activity, reduces overhead if your Application is already built, shares common instances/code, and allows Activities to be reclaimed without loosing your program all together. All good programs need a centralized hub that is the core, and subclassing Application gives you that while allowing you to participate in the Android lifecycle.
My personal favorite is to use http://flexjson.sourceforge.net/ to serialize my Java objects into bundles as JSON if I need to send objects around or save them. Far easier than writing to sqlite DB when all you need to do is persist data. And nice when sending data between two Activities using objects instead of broken apart primitives.
Remember by centralizing your model in the Application you create a place to share code between multiple Activities so you can always delegate an Activities persistence to an object in the Application by hooking the onPause() as well allowing persistence to be centrally located.
The short answer is: use bundles as it makes saving your state out when you're backgrounded easier. Also, it's complicated.
The long answer:
My understanding is, as soon as you Activity's onPause method is called (and onSaveInstanceState which gives you a bundle into which you should store your Activity's data) your process can be terminated without further warning. Later, when the user comes back to your application, your activity is given an onCreate call with that original bundle from which to restore its state. This will happen to all your activitys in what was your original stack.
Being able to restore your state from the bundle (which Android will save for you as your process goes away) is how Android maintain's the myth of multi-tasking. If you don't dump your activity's state out to a bundle each time onSaveInstanceState is called, your app will look like it's been restarted when the user may have just switched out for a second. This can be especially troubling when the system is resource constrained as the system would need to kill off processes more often in order to keep the device running quickly
Why the Application can be Bad
The Application does not actually get a chance to save any of its data if the process is shut down. It does have an onDestroy method but the docs will tell you that this actually never gets called by the system on an actual device. This means that, in the constrained case I mentioned above, any incidental information about what's going on within an Activity (if you've saved it in the Application) will be lost if the process is ended.
Developer's often miss this case (and it can be really annoying for users) because they're either running on a dev phone which never gets hit with using many applications at the same time. We're also never using the app for a while, then switching to another application and, after a while, switching back again.
In any typical iPhone application, there will be model classes that are responsible for data loading/parsing. Upon completion of the data loading/parsing tasks, the affected controllers needed to be notified of the change in the model and update the view accordingly.
There are several listener/observer approaches for this in iPhone application development. What are the pros/cons and reasons for using each of the following approaches?
KVO
NSNotification
Delegate
Any other known approach
In my own experience:
Delegation:
PRO: use only when you have a single object to notify;
PRO: using an explicit protocol you can document clearly your intentions;
CON: can be the source of crashes and memory leaks if wrongly used (tip: don't retain delegates, assign them, and remember to deassign delegates when / if they are released!)
I wrote about memory management problems generated by delegation in this article on my blog:
http://akosma.com/2009/01/28/10-iphone-memory-management-tips/
NSNotification:
PRO: better when you have several objects to notify;
PRO: very flexible, leads to loosely-coupled classes;
CON: notifications are sent synchronously (so make sure your individual notification handlers only do very little)
CON: sometimes hard to document and maintain. Be sure to clearly explain in header docs what each notification means and when it is sent.
KVO:
Similar concerns about NSNotifications;
CON: even more obscure to document. Be sure to add more header docs or architectural tips on your comments to explain who's listening what. I personally wouldn't use KVO for data loading or parsing tasks.
Personally, when dealing with network-enabled apps talking to a remote web service, I use a singleton data loader class (wrapping ASIHTTPRequest and handling all the serialization and deserialization) which pops notifications when something occurs. This way I can have the app delegate handling connection errors on its own (popping up alerts and such if required), and each controller only cares about the responses it wants.
Of course, this approach depends on the application, but this general architecture might be a starting point for your own code.