On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:28:19 PM UTC+1, Latimerius wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Dianne Hackborn
> wrote:
> > Btw, I love how more and more I see people dragging out this quote every
> > time they encounter some limit that they have to deal with, as if there
> > should just no
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
> Btw, I love how more and more I see people dragging out this quote every
> time they encounter some limit that they have to deal with, as if there
> should just not be limits on the resources they can use.
There should not be arbitrary lim
There's your problem Kostya - your paying for the wrong thing - you need
insurance for/against out of memory errors, not exceptions.
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:34:19 AM UTC-4, Kostya Vasilyev wrote:
>
> An insurance policy that covers out of memory exceptions?
>
> 2012/7/31 gjs
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I
An insurance policy that covers out of memory exceptions?
2012/7/31 gjs
> Hi,
>
> I saw recently I could take out an insurance policy that had unlimited
> cover amount, I guess the premium has unlimited cost as well ;-)
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:51:11 AM UTC+10, Dianne Hackb
Hi,
I saw recently I could take out an insurance policy that had unlimited
cover amount, I guess the premium has unlimited cost as well ;-)
Regards
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:51:11 AM UTC+10, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
>
> Btw, I love how more and more I see people dragging out this quote every
Btw, I love how more and more I see people dragging out this quote every
time they encounter some limit that they have to deal with, as if there
should just not be limits on the resources they can use.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:59 AM, bob
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:59 AM, bob wrote:
> *“640K ought to be enough for anyone”*
>
Um, no. There is nothing similar to these two things.
Our limit is: "devices don't have an infinite amount of RAM, applications
must be written to live within the available RAM on the device."
In fact the R
*“640K ought to be enough for anyone”*
On Monday, July 30, 2012 1:30:46 AM UTC-5, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM, bob wrote:
>
>> Worried about memory? Try this:
>>
>>
>
> No.
>
> First of all, this only helps you on higher-end devices that have lots of
> memory
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM, bob wrote:
> Worried about memory? Try this:
>
>
No.
First of all, this only helps you on higher-end devices that have lots of
memory to give you. So you still need to look at the memory available and
make sure you don't exceed it, and the limit may not be an
Worried about memory? Try this:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:11:55 AM UTC-5, Dmitriy F wrote:
>
> I've written a simple test where I have:
> FragmentManager fm = getSupportFragmentManager();
> FragmentTransaction ft = fm.beginTransaction();
> ft.hide(_sv);
> ft.commit();
> When the fragment gets
I've written a simple test where I have:
FragmentManager fm = getSupportFragmentManager();
FragmentTransaction ft = fm.beginTransaction();
ft.hide(_sv);
ft.commit();
When the fragment gets hidden - onPause doesn't get fired. However, system
fires a chain of callbacks up to onDestroyView when I use
If you have a fragment that holds on to a lot of memory in its view
hierarchy and are concerned about this, then use
FragmentTransaction.remove() to make it no longer visible -- that will
remove it from its parent view and destroy its view hierarchy, so it
doesn't hold on to any references. (If yo
Thanks for the answers! Would you mind to suggest on the part about
fragments, bitmaps and memory management ? I decided to implement the app
with 3 activities and about 8 fragments. The fragment number might slightly
increase yet I think it's not the fragments but their bitmaps that gonna
caus
Thanks for the answers! Would you mind to suggest on the part about
fragments and memory management ? I decided to implement the app with 3
activities and about 8 fragments. The activity number might slightly
increase yet I think it's not the fragments but their bitmaps that gonna
cause trouble
>
> 1) Does ImageView.SetImageResource applied against the same id twice or
> thrice consumes memory for the same bitmap or uses a separate range for
> every imageview element ?
>
I don't quite understand your question. When a Bitmap is loaded as a
Drawable (which is what ImageView does), it gets
Hi, I'm developing an app which uses ViewPager(holds 4 fragments) and a
layout that hosts single-page fragments. I haven't populated my fragments
with bitmap data but I'm already anxious about memory management.
Because of the bogus design I can't extract ViewPager to a separate
activity which
16 matches
Mail list logo
