So I could just have some kind of main activity which will
#1 start the background service #2 then launch other supporting activities When that main-activity starts the other supporting activities ( Which could be essentially simple dialogs) those "dialog-activies" could take it for granted that the background service is running and access it via a static member in the Application object. And if that static reference to "the service" is null, the supporting activity will fail - which would be the exception. On Jan 30, 12:54 am, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]> wrote: > There's nothing wrong with using aidl, I just guide people away from it > because usually they are unhappy to deal with it and don't need it anyway. > :) > > One thing people often do is make a common base class (or helper class that > include an instance of) that provides this functionality that is used across > a variety of activities. I realize the dealing with the async nature of > binding to services is annoying, but unfortunately that's the way it is. > > Unfortunately I don't know that the local process globals would help a lot > here -- you still must have each activity bind to the service if it needs it > to be running. But if your activity just wants to use the service if it > happens to already be running, and you can stomache making your components > have a more carnal relationship, then globals can simplify a lot. > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Noonien Soong > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > It's a convenient short-cut. If you are philosophically opposed to such > > > things you can go the more formal route and make things harder on > > yourself. > > > :) > > > hehe, that seems to be the story of my life :-) ... the reluctance to > > do things the easy way. > > > By the way, thanks Dianne for the replies! > > > I am using AIDL-defined interfaces right now. I guess I went a little > > bit too far maybe. Currently I have one service to which I bind from > > two different activities with plus 1 callback-interface each. > > > Now I'm starting to rethink this architecture because I'm adding more > > and more activities which need to talk to the service running in the > > background. Having a separate binding for each activity is starting to > > seem a bit too much.. > > -- > Dianne Hackborn > Android framework engineer > [email protected] > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to > provide private support. All such questions should be posted on public > forums, where I and others can see and answer them. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
