"A future version of the platform will probably just remove all activities owned by the app when it crashes. " -- but doesn't this fit user expectations better? When the user sees "your application has stopped working" and the button "force close", of course he thinks it is the entire application, not any one activity, that will be closed. So though yes, it is a sledgehammer, it fits user expectations better to close all activities making up the application (and services too).
An alternative I would love to see Google at least consider is: offer the user a choice between killing the whole app (presumably by killing the hosting process) and killing just the activity. But most users are unaware of the boundaries between activities in an application anyway, so such an option would appeal more to developers than to users. On Saturday, February 13, 2010 11:31:14 AM UTC-8, Dianne Hackborn wrote: > > What generally happen when a process crashes is that it is killed, the > crashing activity removed, and then the system restarts the next thing on > the activity stack. If you had an activity before that one on the stack > then that activity will be restarted. > > This does allow you to write a pathological case where you have one > activity, that starts another, and the second activity crashing during > initialization. That activity will be removed, the processed killed, and > then the process restarted to display the previous activity which again > launches the crashing activity. > > A future version of the platform will probably just remove all activities > owned by the app when it crashes. This is a little excessive and I would > like to be a little better about it, but yes this case is annoying. (For > example if a browser has multiple activities for each tab/window, it would > be unfortunately to lose all of them if you get a crash while using one of > them.) > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Steeler <[email protected] <javascript:> > > wrote: > >> I've noticed that whenever I introduce some new awful bug to my app >> and it crashes, Android just keeps starting it up over and over again. >> I eventually have to hit the dial button on the phone just to make my >> app lose focus. >> >> I searched this group's posts and the developer documents... I can't >> find anything about this. Is this usual behavior? If so, is there some >> way to disable it? Maybe it's just my coming from a desktop >> background, but I kind of think that when something is closed, it >> should stay closed, especially if the reason it was closed was that it >> crashed. And of course, I hope my final app never force closes, but >> with all the different hardware you never know... >> >> -- >> 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]<javascript:> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en >> > > > > -- > Dianne Hackborn > Android framework engineer > [email protected] <javascript:> > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to > provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
