Objective: I want to develop an UI application that runs a service/ task/method
periodically to update database. This service should start after
periodically even if my application is not active/visible/user exits
app. Similar to an Android Service .
I'm using BlackBerry Java 7.1 SDK eclipse plugin .
The options I came across are the following:
1) How to run BlackBerry application in Background
This link suggests that I extend Application instead of UIApplication. But I can't do that as my application has a user interface.
2) Make application go in background
I don't want my UI application to go in background, instead i just want my application to call the service periodically .
3) Run background task from MainScreen in BlackBerry?
This link suggests to run I a thread, but I don't think that if user exits my application then the thread will run in background
4) Blackberry Install background service from UI application?
This suggests using CodeModuleManager ,whose usage I'm unable to figure .
Please suggest what is the best way to achieve this objective or suggests any other better method .
I am new to blackberry so please pardon my ignorance.
To expand on Peter's Answer:
You will need to create two classes :
class BgApp extends Applicaton
class UiApp extends UiApplication
I guess you have already created the class that extends UiApplicaiton. So add another class that extends Application.
Then create a class that extends TimerTask and implement its run method to call the method that updates the database.
class UpdateDatabaseTask extends TimerTask
In the BgApp constructor, create a Timer. And schedule the UpdateDatabaseTask using the schedule(TimerTask, long, long) method.
Define alternate entry points, check the "Do not show on homescreen" and "auto run on startup" checkboxes for the bgapp's entry point.
It is easiest and simplest to use the builtin persistence mechanism (PersistentStore and Persistable interface) for storing data. Even if you use any other means like RecordStore or SQLDb, both UiApp and BgApp can use access the same database. The values updated by the bgapp will be accessible by the uiapp and vice-versa, automatically.
If you want to send a signal from bgapp to uiapp (for example when bgapp downloads new data you want the uiapp to reload the data instantaneously), post a Global Event (ApplicationManager.postGlobalEvent()) when the download is complete and listen for it in the screen that is displaying the data (GlobalEventListener interface).
There are code samples for each of these available as part of the SDK or search on the internet and you'll find a lot of implementations.
Good research, lots of interesting thoughts.
I think the best thing to do is to try the simple standard approaches and only make something more sophisticated if you need to.
Here are two options that would be regarded as 'standard', with brief advantages and disadvantages:
a) Make your UiApplication go to the Background
Instead of exiting when the user presses the 'close' button, your UiApplication will "requestBackground()". it will automatically be bought to the foreground when the user clicks on the icon, or selects your application from the task switcher. Then you can run a Thread whenever you want or in fact leave one running to update the database.
This is my preferred method. But you have to careful with memory management to make sure there are no leaks. And some people don't like the idea that the Application is visible on the Task Switcher all the time.
b) Alternate Entry
With this option, your one Application package contains two Applications, or more accurately, one Application and one UiApplication. The UiApplication is run when the user clicks on the icon. The Application runs as a background task, and updates the database for your UiApplication.
This looks like a more elegant solution, but introduces some possible communication issues, and is more difficult to debug.
In your case, since you are relatively new to BB, I would suggest that you use option a, and if you find it doesn't work for you, you will not find it that difficult to swap to option b.
And to comment on the Options you have already presented:
Sort of covered with option b
Option a
You are correct - if an Application exits, all the Threads are killed
Leaves the problem of creating the application in the first place and then debugging it. This is not really a solution for you, more an implementation method.
The above is brief, please ask if it is not clear.
This might help with b:
http://supportforums.blackberry.com/t5/Java-Development/Set-up-an-alternate-entry-point-for-an-application/ta-p/444847
Edit:
Editing this to respond to the questions and to expand on the alternative answer, which expanded on this one (bit circular I know...).
To answer the second question first, I agree with the other answer which states the alternate entry (background) and the foreground app can share an SQLite database.
With respect to how these two communicate, while they work just fine, personally I am not a great fan of Global Events because they are propagated to all Applications on the BlackBerry. You can achieve similar things in many alternative ways - the trick is to find something that is common to both applications so that they can communicate. To this end, I recommend using RuntimeStore. See this KB article:
http://supportforums.blackberry.com/t5/Java-Development/Create-a-singleton-using-the-RuntimeStore/ta-p/442854
Regarding how you persist your database, I like PersistentStore because it is present on all devices. But if you really have a database, and not persistent Objects, then SQLite seems the ideal thing to use. Personally I would not use RecordStore, but here is a discussion of the options:
http://supportforums.blackberry.com/t5/Java-Development/Introduction-to-Persistence-Models-on-BlackBerry/ta-p/446810
And just a clarification - in the example given, you have two applications, BgApp and UiApp. You will only have one main() method. This main method will use the args that you specify to determine which one to start, which it will create and have it "enter the dispatcher". If I could make a recommendation - use "gui" as the argument to specify that you will start your UiApplication. I have experienced a circumstance that the OS attempted to start my alternate entry Ui application with this String, regardless of what I had actually specified. Might have been a one off, but I have stuck to doing that ever since.
Finally two comments on the use of Timers and Timertask to provide triggered events. The first comment to make is whatever you run in the TimerTask should not take that long - so you should just use the TimerTask to initiate the download Thread (which might take a long time). Secondly for me, in this situation, I would not use Timer/TimerTask. I would rather just have a single Thread, which 'waits', and then processes. The advantage to me is that this can be adaptive. For example, if you fail to connect, then you might shorten the time till the next connection attempt. Or if it is after hours, then you might lengthen the time between connections to reduce battery usage. Or you might stop connecting completely when the battery is very low.
Hope this helps.
Related
Me and my team are currently rookie developers in Objective-C (less than 3 months in) working on the development of a simple tab based app with network capabilities that contains a navigator controller with a table view and a corresponding detailed view in each tab. The target is iOS 4 sdk.
On the networking side, we have a single class that functions as a Singleton that processes the NSURLConnection for each one of the views in order to retrieve the data we need for each of the table views.
The functionality works fine and we can retrieve the data correctly but only if the user doesn't change views until the petition is over or the button of the same petition (example: Login button) is pressed on again. Otherwise, different mistakes can happen. For example, an error message that should only be displayed on the root view of one of the navigation controllers appears on the detailed view and vice versa.
We suspect that the issue is that we are currently handling only a single delegate on the Singleton for the "active view" and that we should change it to support a behavior based on the native Mail app in which you can change views while the data that was asked for in each one of the views keeps loading and updating correctly separately.
We have looked over stackoverflow and other websites and we haven't found a proper methodology to follow. We were considering using an NSOperationQueue and wrapping the NSURLConnections on an NSOperation, but we are not sure if that's the proper approach.
Does anyone have any suggestions on the proper way to handle multiple asynchronous NSURLConnections to update multiple views, both parent and child, almost simultaneously at the whim of the user's interaction? Ideally, we don't want to block the UI or disable the buttons as we have been recommended.
Thank you for your time!
Edit - forgot to add, one of the project restrictions set by our client is that we can only use the native iOS sdk network framework and not the ASIHTTPRequest framework or similar. At the same time, we also forgot to add that we are not uploading any information, we are only retrieving it from the WS.
One suggestion is to use NSOperations and a NSOperationsQueue. The nice thing about this arrangement is you can quickly cancel any in-process or queued work (if say the user hits the back button.
There is a project on github, NSOperation-WebFetches-MadeEasy that makes this about as painless as it can be. You incorporate one class in your classes - OperationsRunner - which comes with a "how-to-use-me" in OperationsRunner.h, and two skeleton NSOperations classes, one the subclass of another, with the subclass showing how to fetch an image.
I'm sure others will post of other solutions - its almost a problem getting started as there are a huge number of libraries and projects doing this. That said, OperationsRunner is a bit over 100 lines of code, and the operations about the same, so this is really easy to read, understand, use, and modify.
You say that your singleton has a delegate. Delegation is inappropriate when multiple objects are interested in the result. If you wish to continue using a singleton for fetching data, you must switch your pattern to be based on notifications. Your singleton will have responsibility for determining which connection corresponds to which task, and choosing an appropriate notification to be posted.
If you still need help with this, let me know, I'll try to post some sample code.
In my app requirement is, when the app is launch for the first time it will send request to server to get data, parse it and save it in document folder which will be used across entire project.Again after particular time interval the app will send request to server to get updated data(if any) and update that data in document folder, which again will be updated across entire project.All this process is happening in background thread.This process will repeat until the app is running in foreground once the user close the app, the app will get terminate, it will not go in background.
This repeated request I am creating in app delegate as well as doing xml parsing once the data is received and saving after parsing. Now my question is, Is this proper means doing too much stuff in app delegate is safe or there is some limitation or is this bad programming?
What is the correct way of doing this?
I disagree with torrey.lyons to an extent. I think creating singletons is bad practice generally speaking and should be avoided where possible. One thing you should never do is code a class so that it has to be a singleton. Purpose built singletons tend to increase coupling and can be really problematic when it comes to unit testing where you might want to replace your singleton with a stub class or you might need it to be reinitialised for each unit test.
If this task of getting data is an application level task, there is absolutely no reason why it can't logically be located in the application delegate. I would however create a "connection manager" as torrey.lyons suggests and have one as a property of the app delegate.
I would also not use an explicit background thread to do the data update but I would use a subclass of NSOperation. This is a whole lot easier than managing your own thread.
It is bad practice. Your app delegate should ideally be concerned purely with its own responsibilities, i.e.. responding to the messages the application sends its delegate. It is much better to split off other discrete responsibilities into other objects. For example, you could have a "connection manager" object that is responsible for periodically communicating with the server. If you are sure the app will only connect to one server at a time you probably want to use the singleton pattern so that there only one instance of the object in your application and it can be easily reached by any other class. A good discussion of the proper role of the app delegate and singletons can be found on at Singletons, AppDelegates and top-level data. A good general overview on writing singletons can be found under the Care and Feeding of Singletons.
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 would like for my iOS app when it is in background mode to execute at specific intervals some functions
(What I precisely want to do is to check a URL, and indicate its (int) content as a badge.)
However, I don't know how to have the function executed in the background.
Thanks.
Read about Executing Code in the Background. There is a limited set of things you can do in the background, what you describe not among them unfortunately.
I think you have two options to solve this problem each of them has pros and cons.
First, one is background refresh check the link. Have in mind that it is different for ios 13 and above. You need to define background tasks check here. It takes me some time to understand the background tasks but it seems more logical and easy to manage if you have several tasks. Still, you don't have the full control of when this task will be executed. It depends on how much battery, network and so on your task will use every time. The system will choose what is the best time to run it.
There is one more option, to implement a silent push notification check here.
Here you can implement a good push mechanism for updates but you will depend on network and permission for notifications. Also, you will need a backend for this solution.
You need to define what works best for you.
I think the best option is to use the voip background mode. Here you can find all the required information: how to run background process on the iOS using private APIs to sync email items without jailbreaking the phone
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications/setting_up_a_remote_notification_server/pushing_background_updates_to_your_app
To update the content frequently when the app is in the background might be difficult, Instead, you can wake the app by pushing a silent notification from backend at regular intervals.
For more information check this article also
https://medium.com/#m.imadali10/ios-silent-push-notifications-84009d57794c
(I am not talking about Hibernate or NHibernate ORM )
Windows OS (and some linux version) have 'Hibernate' option to save the state and shutdown the Machine. And Later when we restart we can resume from previous stored state.
Is there any way to Hibernate an application alone ? I mean i want to close the application by saving its state and later when i start the application, it should resume from the previous stored state.
Is there any third party tools available, Or Can i add the feature to my application by using third party libraries ?
Edit: I have a .Net WinForm application with tabbed interface and more than 50 input controls . I need a solution to shutdown the application , and restart later with same values on textboxes. I can write a routine to store and restore all textbox values. But i am looking for some generic method, which can work for any application.
You could bundle your application with its OS as an "appliance" and use something like VMWare to hibernate the whole virtual machine.
Or you could use Smalltalk.
(Both approaches are not something you can easily plug into an existing application, but hey, what you are asking for does seem to call for "platform-level support").
Microsoft MED-V Application virtualization might be able to do such thing, would be nice to have more app virtualization features in the OS itself in the future
Objects containing memory that you own are not too difficult. The problem comes with resources owned by the OS (windows, threads, semaphores etc). You could write something that saved/restored the state of these OS-owned resource but you still need to destroy/recreate them.
What are your goals for doing this?
There isn't a framework for this. The simplist way to achieve this, as you suggested, is to store your data in serializable objects and serialize them out into a file and then serialize them back in later.
That's not difficult, and gets you most of the way. It's also fairly generic-- you only need to write a few lines to serialize any amount of serializeable data in and out.
For more complex things, state like where the cursor was previously etc, should be pushed into a serializable object when the user attempts to close the app and manually pushed back when they load the app.
... but chances are your users aren't going to care about stuff like that, they probably just care that there data is back to how it was.