I suppose if something is an activity it can be replaced with
another component activity and thereby promising a certain amount of
openness where it is applicable through intents etc..
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Eric Chan jude...@gmail.com wrote:
lol, I always argue with my mates about
Such an approach would be very inefficient for several reasons. First
of all it requires to inflate many resources that won't be needed
right away, which will slow down your application startup time. It
will also increase memory usage. Then you will defeat the history
mechanism built in Android,
There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong with either approach. It is
just as wrong to say that you shouldn't use the activity model for your UI,
as it is to say that you should never switch between multiple views in the
same activity.
For the issue Romain is addressing, I would agree that
Thanks Dianne, I should have been clearer: it is indeed perfectly fine
to switch between Views, there are good reasons to do so. But
replacing the Activity model is not a good one.
One thing is certain, it is wrong to think that it would be an
optimization. Like I said, it will only slow down
That makes complete sense. I appreciate the advice.
Mark
On Dec 16, 1:14 pm, Romain Guy romain...@google.com wrote:
Thanks Dianne, I should have been clearer: it is indeed perfectly fine
to switch between Views, there are good reasons to do so. But
replacing the Activity model is not a good
There is not a single performance issue that I am trying to solve. It
is more of an issue of keeping the code simple, limiting the number of
Activities in my application and reducing the number of places that I
have to access my content providers. Often times I have something
like a Sports game
Each Activity carries a lot of baggage like state management, etc
which is not always applicable. I started my first Android app like a
good boy from the Notepad example and very soon had a spaghetti of
Activities. It got to the point that I had to click Back button 6 or 7
times to get back to my
We never said every screen has to be an Activity (that's why it's
called Activity and not Screen :)). Calendar is a good example of
this, when you switch between the Day view to the Week view, you
remain in the same activity for instance.
Again, it is perfectly sound to flip views inside one
Cool - I guess we were arguing on the same side of things. :)
I definitely saw this in API docs somewhere and Diane just repeated it
too that general rule of thumb should be new Activity for new screen
and I just think that as a general rule of thumb you probably don't
want to have new Activity
We are just arguing semantics here. Yes, there are times when it makes
sense to start a new activity and times when it makes sense to change the UI
in an existing one. I'm not going to give you The Rule for when these times
are. That is part of designing your UI, keeping in mind the basic
lol, I always argue with my mates about use activity or multiple layout
views. We follow this, if menu changes with screen changes, use the
activity, else employ multiple layout
views
2008/12/17 Dianne Hackborn hack...@android.com
We are just arguing semantics here. Yes, there are times when
11 matches
Mail list logo
