I'm trying to sync abcjs with ToneJS. abcjs plays a melody (via notation) and ToneJS plays a loop. I would like to sync these two audio sources.
As I understand I need to create a shared AudioContext in which they both can play, but I'm not sure how to do it.
As far as I understand I need to create a shared audio context. From the ToneJS docs I can use Tone.setContext(ac). I also need a onClick (or similar) callback to run await Tone.play() before playback works. But setting audio context before Tone.play() I get the error "AudioContext is suspended ...".
Can someone please lead me in the right direction...?
I found the AOSP source code from Google and also retrieved vendor's info from https://github.com/sonyxperiadev/device-sony-sgp321
Sony added its Bravia Engine library to AOSP to improve image and video quality. It can either be called in libstagefright's awesomelocalrenderer or called at the decoding phase, when OMX addPlugin is called.
I searched both places, the code there are the same compare with other native AOSP source code. I would like to know how does Sony use its BE library?
Bravia engine is mainly employed for video/image post-processing prior to rendering on the framework. There is an interesting link at http://developer.sonymobile.com/2012/06/21/mobile-bravia-engine-explained-video/.
In AOSP, I presume the user settings from the menu are read and subsequent filtering is enabled/applied in SurfaceFlinger or HwComposer parts of the framework. Another link of interest could be: http://blog.gsmarena.com/heres-what-sony-ericsson-mobile-bravia-engine-really-does-review/
EDIT: Interaction between Video Decoder - AwesomePlayer - HwComposer
The following is a summary of interactions between the different actors in the playback and composition pipeline.
AwesomePlayer acts as a sink to the OMX Video Decoder. Hence, it will continuously poll for a new frame that could be available for rendering and processing.
When OMX Video Decoder completes the decoder, the FillBufferDone callback of the codec will unblock a read invoked by the AwesomePlayer.
Once the frame is available, it is subjected to the A/V synchronization logic by the AwesomePlayer module and pushed into SurfaceTexture via the render call. All the aforementioned steps are performed as part of AwesomePlayer::onVideoEvent method.
The render will queue the buffer. This SurfaceTexture is one of the layers available for the composition to the SurfaceFlinger.
When a new layer is available, through a series of steps, SurfaceFlinger will invoke the HwComposer to perform the composition of all the related layers.
AOSP only provides a template or an API for the HwComposer, the actual implementation of which is left to the vendor.
My guess is that all vendor specific binaries are just implementing the standard interface defined by Android/OMX.
And these engine is complied into shared objects which can be found at /system/vendor directory.
The Android system just have to look at the directory and load the necessary shared objects.
So I currently have an application independent of Play which may take a long time in its execution.
I want to put a UI on top of it using Play where the application may be invoked and to display some of the details of the execution inside of the application to the user. I would like the page to be updated automatically as the execution proceeds e.g. if a variable in the application increments this would be reflected on the page.
I'm not sure where to begin with this - do I need to split the application up into models + controllers ? Or do I just need to have code in a controller to instantiate the classes I have already coded and call the methods I need ?
What about constantly showing the execution state on the page?
Any resources I should know about/read ? Code examples?
Thanks
You may have already done so, but a good starting point is to create a skeleton Play application using the play new command, while referring the creating a new application section. You will have "views" (HTML template pages) and one controller (in Application.scala). You could add more controllers, but as you will have just a single page that should suffice.
You can add jars from your app (if it's a JVM app) to the lib directory of your Play application. From this: "Or do I just need to have code in a controller to instantiate the classes I have already coded and call the methods I need?" it sounds like you would be happy to have your app run in the process of the Jetty + Play server. Check out the Global object for starting your app at process startup.
Check out the section on comet sockets for sending updates from the Play app to the browser. You'll need a bit of Javascript in the web page.
Do you want to have this application running outside of play, perhaps on another server? Can you modify the application, or is this 3rd party software?
If so, you have to have some way to send data back and forth between your play front end and your application. You can either have your application expose a websocket, and then your play front end and your application can push data back and forth to each other. You can then have your client page have a websocket open to you play front end, and then play can push the updates to the client. If your application can't support a websocket, you could also expose some URLs on your front end for the application to POST to. You can then use some sort of message bus or database mechanism (RabbitMQ, redis, Mongo capped collection, or even just a shared Queue object) so that the front end websocket can get those updates and send them to the client.
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.
I have an iPad app that works both on and offline but when I am offline there are web service calls that will need to be made once online availability is an option again.
Example:
A new client is added to the app, this needs to be sent to the web service but since we are offline we dont want to slow the user down so we let them add locally and keep going but we need to remember that that call needs to be made to the web service when we can. Same thing for placing orders and such.
Is there some sort of queue that can be setup that will fire once we have connectivity?
I don't think the overhead of a heavyweight tool like MSMQ is needed for a simple action. You can use Core Data, persist managed objects with the data needed to call the web service, and only delete each managed object after a successful post. There might or might not be a way to capture an event when connectivity starts, but you can certainly create a repeating NSTimer when the first message is queued and stop it when there are no messages in the queue.
This library handles offline persistent message queueing for situations like you describe. It says alpha from a year ago, but I have confirmed it is used in production apps:
https://github.com/gcamp/IPOfflineQueue