Mariano Kamp wrote: > Now you would have two active wake locks and actually when using a naive > approach to a static variable you would have overwritten the old wake > lock, which would lead to the old lock not being releases which would > lead to the phone not shutting down.
Have you tried using setReferenceCounted(true) on the WakeLock? From a glance at the WakeLock code, you should not need to have two WakeLocks in your case -- one reference-counted WakeLock should suffice. In the scenario you described: -- The activity tells the service, "yo! sync me!" -- The service acquires the reference-counted WakeLock (count now = 1) -- The alarm goes off and starts the service -- The started service acquires the *same* reference-counted WakeLock (count now = 2) -- The work from the activity-initiated sync wraps up and releases the WakeLock (count now = 1 and we are still locked) -- The work from the alarm wraps up and releases the WakeLock (count now = 0 and the lock is truly released) Admittedly, this is all theoretical, as I haven't tried reference counted WakeLocks, though I think I'm going to give that a shot here. > The short story is, passing in a wake lock using a > naive approach of a static variable doesn't work when the service can be > started again during its runtime. That depends on what your static variable holds. ;-) -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com | http://twitter.com/commonsguy Android App Developer Training: http://commonsware.com/training.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
