Setting the data uniquely in this way is a bit ugly - and what if you post two intents within the granularity of the clock? I use unique request codes. I can't claim that this is the intended use for them (the documentation is a bit sparse) but it seems to work well. Tom.
2009/4/22 Rob Franz <[email protected]> > Hi Dianne,I thought that the goal was to create unique pendingIntents... > i.e. don't cancel or change the currently pending one. > > For me, changing the extras didn't work - doing the setData() with the > random value made the intent 'unique' in the eyes of the notification > manager...i wanted the ability to send multiple different pending intents, > and that's worked for me thus far. > > -rob > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I hope you aren't writing constants into real code like that. :} >> >> For changing the extras -- you need to use cancel, and this will result in >> a new PendingIntent that you need to send to the notification manager. As >> of cupcake you can alternatively use the new FLAG_UPDATE_CURRENT. >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Rob Franz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Actually it looks like >>> PendingIntent pendingIntent = PendingIntent.getBroadcast(context, 0, >>> intent, 0x10000000); >>> >>> ...works for me (0x10000000 represents FLAG_CANCEL_CURRENT). I can >>> verify that the appropriate extras data makes it to the intent. Hope this >>> helps. >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Rob Franz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I'm running into the same thing - sending multiple PIs with the extras >>>> data changing each time. If I send two PIs, I get the first PI extra >>>> data. I'm glad someone else ran into this, because I was going crazy >>>> trying to find out why my stuff wasn't working. >>>> >>>> Seeing a couple of different opinions here... what's the Google- >>>> preferred way to do it? I'm in the US on TMobile so I believe it's >>>> RC33 that I've got. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 26, 7:08 pm, "info+farm" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > Thank you for your detailed answer Blake B., >>>> > >>>> > First of all I understood that different Extras are not act as a >>>> > difference on PendingIntent comparison. >>>> > >>>> > In the first option assigning a stub data element seems reasonable but >>>> > I did not like the approach to put not only irrelevant but also not >>>> > necessary data on each intent call to distinguish them. >>>> > >>>> > With the second approach, assigning FLAG_CANCEL_CURRENT flag to the >>>> > PendingIntent worked well on button calls but did not work on >>>> > notification calls. I received "Sending contentIntent failed: >>>> > android.app.PendingIntent$CanceledException" error in logcat on each >>>> > different PendingIntent start. I have seen a bug report is made about >>>> > this issue(#13) on android-astrid. >>>> > In the issue, it is said that although the javadoc says requestCode is >>>> > not used, the real OS code consider the value specified there. Then, I >>>> > used the requestCodes to distinguish the PendingIntent starts. >>>> > >>>> > Is it possible to get information from the API builders, what will be >>>> > the purpose of the requestCode parameter on PendingIntent creation in >>>> > the future? The reason is I want to be able to sure that my code won't >>>> > stuck at that time of API change. >>>> > >>>> > Regards, >>>> > info+farm >>>> > >>>> > On Mar 25, 5:01 pm, "Blake B." <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > To correct my previous statement, PendingIntents are cached by the >>>> > > system, not Intents. The note about how to differentiate Intents >>>> > > still holds though, so if you need to replace a current >>>> PendingIntent >>>> > > with a new PI that has a new Intent that only differs by its Extras, >>>> > > be sure to use the flag FLAG_CANCEL_CURRENT so that the cached PI is >>>> > > not used. >>>> > >>>> > > From Intent.filterEquals(o): >>>> > > Returns true if action, data, type, class, and categories are >>>> the >>>> > > same. <== note does not include Extras >>>> > >>>> > > From PendingIntents javadoc: >>>> > >>>> > > * <p>A PendingIntent itself is simply a reference to a token >>>> > > maintained by >>>> > > * the system describing the original data used to retrieve it. >>>> This >>>> > > means >>>> > > * that, even if its owning application's process is killed, the >>>> > > * PendingIntent itself will remain usable from other processes that >>>> > > * have been given it. If the creating application later >>>> re-retrieves >>>> > > the >>>> > > * same kind of PendingIntent (same operation, same Intent action, >>>> > > data, >>>> > > * categories, and components, and same flags), it will receive a >>>> > > PendingIntent >>>> > > * representing the same token if that is still valid, and can thus >>>> > > call >>>> > > * {...@link #cancel} to remove it. >>>> > >>>> > > On Mar 25, 7:48 am, "Blake B." <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > > Intents are cached by the system, and two Intents are not >>>> > > > differentiated by their Extras. So your two intents look like the >>>> > > > same Intent and the second one is being tossed out. You must >>>> differ >>>> > > > Intents by their Action/Data/Category. I will sometimes use the >>>> Data >>>> > > > field to hold a simple ID that is not really a URI to make two >>>> intents >>>> > > > appear different. Look at the code for Intent.equals() I believe, >>>> and >>>> > > > you will see that Extras are not considered. >>>> > >>>> > > > On Mar 24, 12:47 pm, "info+farm" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > > > Are not Google developers looking into this forum anymore? >>>> > >>>> > > > > Then, I will be missing the detailed answers. >>>> > >>>> > > > > Regards, >>>> > > > > info+farm >>>> > >>>> > > > > On Mar 24, 3:17 pm, "info+farm" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > > > > Hello Mr. Murphy, >>>> > >>>> > > > > > I searched for it before sending my post and looked at >>>> > >>>> > > > > > >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/threa. >>>> .. >>>> > > > > > andhttp:// >>>> groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/threa... >>>> > >>>> > > > > > But both of them could not find the answer to the problem. >>>> > >>>> > > > > > I am afraidPendingIntenthas different Intent >>>> initialization(start >>>> > > > > > ()), from the normal startActivity(). >>>> > >>>> > > > > > I am a little bit confused, >>>> > >>>> > > > > > Regards, >>>> > > > > > info+farm >>>> > >>>> > > > > > On Mar 23, 11:32 pm, Mark Murphy <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > info+farm wrote: >>>> > > > > > > > Am I the only one who is having this problem? >>>> > > > > > > > Actually, I am going to find a workaround for this >>>> problem, but I >>>> > > > > > > > would like to know what I am doing wrong. >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > I do not remember the answer, but I do know this was >>>> discussed on this >>>> > > > > > > list within the past few months. Search the list >>>> forPendingIntentand >>>> > > > > > > you will probably find it. >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > -- >>>> > > > > > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com >>>> > > > > > > Warescription: Three Android Books, Plus Updates, $35/Year >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
