Murphy's logic should be subject to Murphy's law... On May 29, 9:03 am, Mark Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Yan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is it safe to assume the new activity will have priorty over the > > previous activity that is no longer accessible? > > Since I have no idea what you are talking about, I certainly cannot assume > that. > > > Will there not a > > potentially corrupted zombie-process still lurking as the app > > continues on its merry way? > > Only if you are a lousy developer. > > > Is it not more likely an exit() of some > > kind would allow the system to clean-up unforeseen effects of the > > corruption than the chance that the system would bringing any back > > from the dead the next time the app starts up? > > By definition, to use exit() properly, you have to detect the > conditions where exit() is needed. And, if you can detect when exit() > is needed, then you do not need to call exit() -- you can reset your > app to a well-known good state. > > -- > Mark Murphy (a Commons > Guy)http://commonsware.com|http://github.com/commonsguyhttp://commonsware.com/blog|http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > Android Training in NYC:http://marakana.com/training/android/
-- 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
