We are using xamarin forms with prism. We have simple pages with small amount of data to be displayed on each page and include simple calculations. We are using prism navigation service to navigate between pages. We are experiencing some latency from clicking a button to navigating to next page. Data is fetched inside OnNavigatedTo since navigation parameter changes the data. Can someone shed some light of why is there a latency, it is close 1+ second and sometimes 2 seconds.
Also, it seems like each page is getting rendered twice... Once before OnNaviagatedTo and then data changes. OnProperty or OnCollection changed is fired from within OnNavigatedTo and it seems to cause the rendering again.
Version 6.3.0 introduced the concept of OnNavigatingTo, while OnNavigatedTo has been around for a while. There is a distinct difference between the two. Understanding the order in which things occur should help you create a nicer user experience.
New Page is created
OnNavigatedFrom is called
OnNavigatingTo is called
New Page is pushed onto the Navigation Stack and becomes visible
OnNavigatedTo is called
Applications that have to reach out and fetch data can often experience latency issues because it takes time to reach out to the remote service and get the data we want and then parse that data into a usable object. This particular problem was one in which many developers wanted to cut down the demand on the UI with having to refresh as the bindings were being updated which led to the introduction of OnNavigatingTo.
While neither one will reduce network latency it gives you an ability to make the calling page enter an IsBusy state that may display some sort of loading icon which would then be updated to false when NavigateAsync completes and your new page is displayed already loaded.
Assume a page that shows a complex data structure (for example, an article with many details). This view will be reused from time to time by rebinding it to different articles.
Now, I noticed that the ODataModel keeps all used article entities in memory (also if they are no longer bound to any control).
This will lead to two issues:
Memory consumption increases over time (if application will not be reloaded).
If the application forces a refresh of the data model, all entities will be loaded (also not used).
The second issue seems to be the bigger problem. It slows down the speed of the application.
I have not found a solution for that problem. If I use refresh(true, true) it seems all data will be reloaded.
Is there an way to clean the model?
Edit
Lets say you have a list of thousands of articles. User can click on one of the articles and will navigate to a detailed screen of that article.
The OData model in client side will cache this. To see it, do something like:
var oModel = this.getModel("modelName");
look with the debugger into oModel.oData.
If the user now navigates back and chooses the next article, this will be cached as well.
If user does this 1000 times, all articles are now in the model.
If you trigger a oModel.refresh(true);, all these data (of 1000 articles) will be reloaded not only the one bound to the view.
Now my application is not about showing article information. It's a more complex structure with subitems. Each time user is visiting this page, more data will be cached (and re-fetched in case of a refresh call on the model).
Edit 2
The function updateBindings(bForceUpdate?) seems to help a little bit.
Anyhow, the data accumulation is still there in the ODataModel class.
That means: Each visited data path will stay in memory since the next reload (F5) of the full page. If someone uses such an application over a day, the data accumulates and a refresh call on the model will read all data again, if still bound to a view or not.
Try deleteCreatedEntry(oContext). Even though this is not the supposed use case for this method it might work to delete an entity from the model without triggering a backend request.
You could also try if updateBindings(bForceUpdate?) only triggers an update on actually bound entities.
1) I do not really understand your problem here. What is it exactly that you do? OData always holds the result of your request plus a queue of changes to that request. If you create lots of entries while your application is running, of course the memory consumption will increase. If you want to revert back to the original request you can use resetChanges(). THis way the used memory should decrease again. But you lose all your changes to the model.
2) Maybe you should look into Odata filtering (http://www.odata.org/getting-started/basic-tutorial/) so that you only load the entities you really want. If you only want a part of the entity loaded then you should maybe redesign your entities to avoid a lot of overhead.
It is hard to speculate what your exact problem is.
Well, if you know exactly what are you doing, you can try something like this:
this.getModel("modelname").aBindings = []
Better solution would be go through the aBindings array and remove redundant bindings.
I am using a custom AuthAttribute to determine whether a user can access a controller and/or actions. The problem is I have to duplicate information and EFx connections in the attribute that already exist on the class that is being adorned.
My question is whether there is a way to access the fields on the adorned class from the custom AuthAttribute? I am trying to avoid having to re-architect the software in a way that would provide a single point of access since that would open up a different can of worms.
I believe I have found an answer that works. I welcome all comments on this solution.
Rather than have the attribute gain access to the properties and fields on the controller it adorns you can share values between them in a thread-safe way through the common HttpContext object. So if you are being extreme like I am and are trying to cut down on duplicate calls to your database in both the authattribute and the adorned controller action then pass the results forward. What that means is the authattribute will be called first and you can stash the retrieved values in the "Items" collection off the HttpContext object passed into the AuthorizeCore(..) method. You can then retrieve the same value in a THREAD-SAFE way through the HttpContext object in the controller.
example to save value within the AuthorizeCore(..) override of the AuthAttribute:
httpContext.Items.Add("fester", "bester");
example to retrieve value inside the subsequent call to the Controller/Action:
this.HttpContext.ApplicationInstance.Context.Items["fester"];
I have to warn you this is only a possible implementation that appears to work in simple testing. Personally it feels like a hack and there has to be a better way. I would also state this is in pursuit of a dubious performance benefit. It should cut down on the number of database and/or network calls by cache'ing retrieved data in the HttpContext so you don't have to repeat the calls in both the authattribute and the adorned Controller/Action. If you don't have a web site that gets a huge volume of calls then I would warn you against this.
I hope someone recommends something better on this page. I will keep an eye on how this works on my web site and let y'all know if it behaves and is truly thread-safe.
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.
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.