Different request codes is a perfectly fine way to do it.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Rob Franz <[email protected]> wrote:
> So with all the input from this thread, what's the proper way to send x
> number of pending intents that are unique?
> I guess I'm doing it not 100% correctly (even though it seems to work for
> me and the intents are spaced out enough not to interfere with each other).
> I was doing it
> as setData((Uri.parse("custom://"+SystemClock.elapsedRealtime())).
>
> -rob
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> No, I mean setting the explicit component to your broadcast receiver
>> component on the Intent class. I strongly strongly recommend this for this
>> kind of situation where you want someone to deliver some specific thing to a
>> component in your app. Please read the Intent java doc for more info.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Fuzzmonkey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> By explicit component do you mean <data android scheme="custom"></
>>> data> in the intent filter or code in the broadcast receiver? Is that
>>> all i'd need?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>> On Apr 23, 1:29 am, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > You didn't include all of your code, but you definitely what to set an
>>> > explicit component for your receiver, and then the rest of the intent
>>> data
>>> > doesn't matter for deciding where or whether it will be delivered.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Fuzzmonkey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Done a bit more digging.
>>> >
>>> > > proxIntent.setData((Uri.parse("custom://"+SystemClock.elapsedRealtime
>>> > > ())));
>>> >
>>> > > If i add this line, the proximity alert is still triggered but the
>>> > > intent is never received. That is I assume it's still being fired but
>>> > > not received. I just get..
>>> >
>>> > > I/LocationManagerService( 57): Entered alert
>>> >
>>> > > Rather than..
>>> >
>>> > > I/LocationManagerService( 57): Entered alert
>>> > > D/DEBUG ( 319): Broadcast received
>>> > > D/MyActivity( 319): Proximity alert fired
>>> > > D/MyActivity( 319): 2 2
>>> >
>>> > > Those log commands are in my broadcast reciever btw. Do i need to
>>> > > change my intent filter with regards to the data bit? I've also
>>> logged
>>> > > SystemClock.elapsedRealtime to see if the pending intents were being
>>> > > added at the same time, they aren't.
>>> >
>>> > > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > > George
>>> >
>>> > > On Apr 22, 11:53 pm, Fuzzmonkey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > > > Hmm.
>>> >
>>> > > > I'm currently using unique request codes and i'm still getting this
>>> > > > problem. I'm trying to add multiple proximity alerts, with each
>>> alert
>>> > > > containing different information. For example, i have 4 gps co-
>>> > > > ordinates belong to the same group. I want the intent to contain
>>> the
>>> > > > extra information reflecting this.
>>> >
>>> > > > Intent proxIntent = new Intent
>>> > > > ("android.intent.action.PROXIMITY_ALERT");
>>> > > > proxIntent.putExtra("goal", goalid);
>>> > > > proxIntent.putExtra("mgoal", mgoalid);
>>> >
>>> > > > I then add this 'unique' intent to a pending intent. r represents a
>>> > > > unique request code, generated at random.
>>> >
>>> > > > PendingIntent pi = PendingIntent.getBroadcast(this, r, proxIntent,
>>> > > > PendingIntent.FLAG_CANCEL_CURRENT);
>>> >
>>> > > > And then add this pending intent to the location manager.
>>> >
>>> > > > lm.addProximityAlert(latitude, longitude, radius, -1, pi);
>>> >
>>> > > > The problem i'm finding that if a add 4 proximity alerts quite a
>>> > > > distance appart, say 500m and set the radius to 50 the information
>>> i'm
>>> > > > receiving when a proximity alert is fired is always that of the
>>> last
>>> > > > alert added. I'm assuming this is because the pending intents are
>>> not
>>> > > > being seen as unique, and is being over written every time i add a
>>> new
>>> > > > proximity alert. If i had the line..
>>> >
>>> > > > i.setData((Uri.parse("custom://"+SystemClock.elapsedRealtime())));
>>> >
>>> > > > The proximity alerts don't seem to fire at all! It's all very
>>> > > > confusing. Any one shed any light on this?
>>> >
>>> > > > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > > > George
>>> >
>>> > > > On Apr 22, 9:06 pm, Rob Franz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > Yeah I agree - it is ugly, but for my purposes it worked... the
>>> intents
>>> > > > > wouldn't be fired one right after the other for me.
>>> >
>>> > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Tom Gibara <[email protected]>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > 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
>>> >
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> > read more ยป
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
