My other suggestion would be to run a diff on the 2.2 and 2.3 source trees and see where it has been "broken", in your opinion. If you can point to an exact piece of code, you may have better luck getting this resolved.
Unfortunately, you will forever have to do this workaround (or at least as long as you are supporting 2.3 in your app). On Mar 1, 9:45 am, Jake Basile <[email protected]> wrote: > Your definition of how START_STICKY works is different from the > documentation<http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Service.html#START...> > : > > if this service's process is killed while it is started (after returning > from onStartCommand(Intent, int, > int)<http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Service.html#onSta..., > int, int)>), then leave it in the started state but don't retain this > delivered intent. Later the system will try to re-create the service. > Because it is in the started state, it will guarantee to call > onStartCommand(Intent, > int, > int)<http://developer.android.com/reference/android/app/Service.html#onSta..., > int, int)> after creating the new service instance; if there are not any > pending start commands to be delivered to the service, it will be called with > a null intent object, so you must take care to check for this. > > This describes exactly what I want to have happen. This is exactly what does > happen on Android < 2.3. On Android 2.3 (and possibly 3.0), this no longer > occurs and breaks my app. I know using startForeground works, and I use it. > That's the kludgy workaround I spoke of, because I don't need to *always* be > on, I just need to be reliably restarted. > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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
