No, I mean setting the explicit component to your broadcast receiver
component on the Intent class. I strongly strongly recommend this for this
kind of situation where you want someone to deliver some specific thing to a
component in your app. Please read the Intent java doc for more info.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Fuzzmonkey <she...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> By explicit component do you mean <data android scheme="custom"></
> data> in the intent filter or code in the broadcast receiver? Is that
> all i'd need?
>
> Thanks,
>
> George
>
> On Apr 23, 1:29 am, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com> wrote:
> > You didn't include all of your code, but you definitely what to set an
> > explicit component for your receiver, and then the rest of the intent
> data
> > doesn't matter for deciding where or whether it will be delivered.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Fuzzmonkey <she...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Done a bit more digging.
> >
> > > proxIntent.setData((Uri.parse("custom://"+SystemClock.elapsedRealtime
> > > ())));
> >
> > > If i add this line, the proximity alert is still triggered but the
> > > intent is never received. That is I assume it's still being fired but
> > > not received. I just get..
> >
> > > I/LocationManagerService( 57): Entered alert
> >
> > > Rather than..
> >
> > > I/LocationManagerService( 57): Entered alert
> > > D/DEBUG ( 319): Broadcast received
> > > D/MyActivity( 319): Proximity alert fired
> > > D/MyActivity( 319): 2 2
> >
> > > Those log commands are in my broadcast reciever btw. Do i need to
> > > change my intent filter with regards to the data bit? I've also logged
> > > SystemClock.elapsedRealtime to see if the pending intents were being
> > > added at the same time, they aren't.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > > George
> >
> > > On Apr 22, 11:53 pm, Fuzzmonkey <she...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hmm.
> >
> > > > I'm currently using unique request codes and i'm still getting this
> > > > problem. I'm trying to add multiple proximity alerts, with each alert
> > > > containing different information. For example, i have 4 gps co-
> > > > ordinates belong to the same group. I want the intent to contain the
> > > > extra information reflecting this.
> >
> > > > Intent proxIntent = new Intent
> > > > ("android.intent.action.PROXIMITY_ALERT");
> > > > proxIntent.putExtra("goal", goalid);
> > > > proxIntent.putExtra("mgoal", mgoalid);
> >
> > > > I then add this 'unique' intent to a pending intent. r represents a
> > > > unique request code, generated at random.
> >
> > > > PendingIntent pi = PendingIntent.getBroadcast(this, r, proxIntent,
> > > > PendingIntent.FLAG_CANCEL_CURRENT);
> >
> > > > And then add this pending intent to the location manager.
> >
> > > > lm.addProximityAlert(latitude, longitude, radius, -1, pi);
> >
> > > > The problem i'm finding that if a add 4 proximity alerts quite a
> > > > distance appart, say 500m and set the radius to 50 the information
> i'm
> > > > receiving when a proximity alert is fired is always that of the last
> > > > alert added. I'm assuming this is because the pending intents are not
> > > > being seen as unique, and is being over written every time i add a
> new
> > > > proximity alert. If i had the line..
> >
> > > > i.setData((Uri.parse("custom://"+SystemClock.elapsedRealtime())));
> >
> > > > The proximity alerts don't seem to fire at all! It's all very
> > > > confusing. Any one shed any light on this?
> >
> > > > Thanks,
> >
> > > > George
> >
> > > > On Apr 22, 9:06 pm, Rob Franz <rob.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Yeah I agree - it is ugly, but for my purposes it worked... the
> intents
> > > > > wouldn't be fired one right after the other for me.
> >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Tom Gibara <m...@tomgibara.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > Setting the data uniquely in this way is a bit ugly - and what if
> you
> > > post
> > > > > > two intents within the granularity of the clock?
> > > > > > I use unique request codes. I can't claim that this is the
> intended
> > > use for
> > > > > > them (the documentation is a bit sparse) but it seems to work
> well.
> > > > > > Tom.
> >
> > > > > > 2009/4/22 Rob Franz <rob.fr...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > > > > Hi Dianne,I thought that the goal was to create unique
> > > pendingIntents...
> > > > > >> i.e. don't cancel or change the currently pending one.
> >
> > > > > >> For me, changing the extras didn't work - doing the setData()
> with
> > > the
> > > > > >> random value made the intent 'unique' in the eyes of the
> > > notification
> > > > > >> manager...i wanted the ability to send multiple different
> pending
> > > intents,
> > > > > >> and that's worked for me thus far.
> >
> > > > > >> -rob
> >
> > > > > >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Dianne Hackborn <
> > > hack...@android.com>wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>> I hope you aren't writing constants into real code like that.
> :}
> >
> > > > > >>> For changing the extras -- you need to use cancel, and this
> will
> > > result
> > > > > >>> in a new PendingIntent that you need to send to the
> notification
> > > manager.
> > > > > >>> As of cupcake you can alternatively use the new
> > > FLAG_UPDATE_CURRENT.
> >
> > > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Rob Franz <
> rob.fr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>> Actually it looks like
> > > > > >>>> PendingIntent pendingIntent =
> PendingIntent.getBroadcast(context,
> > > 0,
> > > > > >>>> intent, 0x10000000);
> >
> > > > > >>>> ...works for me (0x10000000 represents FLAG_CANCEL_CURRENT).
> I
> > > can
> > > > > >>>> verify that the appropriate extras data makes it to the
> intent.
> > > Hope this
> > > > > >>>> helps.
> >
> > > > > >>>> -Rob
> >
> > > > > >>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Rob Franz <
> rob.fr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>>> I'm running into the same thing - sending multiple PIs with
> the
> > > extras
> > > > > >>>>> data changing each time. If I send two PIs, I get the first
> PI
> > > extra
> > > > > >>>>> data. I'm glad someone else ran into this, because I was
> going
> > > crazy
> > > > > >>>>> trying to find out why my stuff wasn't working.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> Seeing a couple of different opinions here... what's the
> Google-
> > > > > >>>>> preferred way to do it? I'm in the US on TMobile so I
> believe
> > > it's
> > > > > >>>>> RC33 that I've got.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > > >>>>> Rob
> >
> > > > > >>>>> On Mar 26, 7:08 pm, "info+farm" <bilgiciftl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> > Thank you for your detailed answer Blake B.,
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > First of all I understood that different Extras are not act
> as
> > > a
> > > > > >>>>> > difference on PendingIntent comparison.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > In the first option assigning a stub data element seems
> > > reasonable
> > > > > >>>>> but
> > > > > >>>>> > I did not like the approach to put not only irrelevant but
> also
> > > not
> > > > > >>>>> > necessary data on each intent call to distinguish them.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > With the second approach, assigning FLAG_CANCEL_CURRENT
> flag to
> > > the
> > > > > >>>>> > PendingIntent worked well on button calls but did not work
> on
> > > > > >>>>> > notification calls. I received "Sending contentIntent
> failed:
> > > > > >>>>> > android.app.PendingIntent$CanceledException" error in
> logcat on
> > > each
> > > > > >>>>> > different PendingIntent start. I have seen a bug report is
> made
> > > about
> > > > > >>>>> > this issue(#13) on android-astrid.
> > > > > >>>>> > In the issue, it is said that although the javadoc says
> > > requestCode
> > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>> > not used, the real OS code consider the value specified
> there.
> > > Then,
> > > > > >>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>> > used the requestCodes to distinguish the PendingIntent
> starts.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > Is it possible to get information from the API builders,
> what
> > > will be
> > > > > >>>>> > the purpose of the requestCode parameter on PendingIntent
> > > creation in
> > > > > >>>>> > the future? The reason is I want to be able to sure that my
> > > code
> > > > > >>>>> won't
> > > > > >>>>> > stuck at that time of API change.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > Regards,
> > > > > >>>>> > info+farm
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > On Mar 25, 5:01 pm, "Blake B." <bbuckle...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > To correct my previous statement, PendingIntents are
> cached
> > > by the
> > > > > >>>>> > > system, not Intents. The note about how to differentiate
> > > Intents
> > > > > >>>>> > > still holds though, so if you need to replace a current
> > > > > >>>>> PendingIntent
> > > > > >>>>> > > with a new PI that has a new Intent that only differs by
> its
> > > > > >>>>> Extras,
> > > > > >>>>> > > be sure to use the flag FLAG_CANCEL_CURRENT so that the
> > > cached PI
> > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>> > > not used.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > From Intent.filterEquals(o):
> > > > > >>>>> > > Returns true if action, data, type, class, and
> categories
> > > are
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>> > > same. <== note does not include Extras
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > From PendingIntents javadoc:
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > * <p>A PendingIntent itself is simply a reference to a
> token
> > > > > >>>>> > > maintained by
> > > > > >>>>> > > * the system describing the original data used to
> retrieve
> > > it.
> > > > > >>>>> This
> > > > > >>>>> > > means
> > > > > >>>>> > > * that, even if its owning application's process is
> killed,
> > > the
> > > > > >>>>> > > * PendingIntent itself will remain usable from other
> > > processes
> > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>> > > * have been given it. If the creating application later
> > > > > >>>>> re-retrieves
> > > > > >>>>> > > the
> > > > > >>>>> > > * same kind of PendingIntent (same operation, same
> Intent
> > > action,
> > > > > >>>>> > > data,
> > > > > >>>>> > > * categories, and components, and same flags), it will
> > > receive a
> > > > > >>>>> > > PendingIntent
> > > > > >>>>> > > * representing the same token if that is still valid,
> and
> > > can thus
> > > > > >>>>> > > call
> > > > > >>>>> > > * {...@link #cancel} to remove it.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > On Mar 25, 7:48 am, "Blake B." <bbuckle...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > > Intents are cached by the system, and two Intents are
> not
> > > > > >>>>> > > > differentiated by their Extras. So your two intents
> look
> > > like
> > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>> > > > same Intent and the second one is being tossed out.
> You
> > > must
> > > > > >>>>> differ
> > > > > >>>>> > > > Intents by their Action/Data/Category. I will
> sometimes
> > > use the
> > > > > >>>>> Data
> > > > > >>>>> > > > field to hold a simple ID that is not really a URI to
> make
> > > two
> > > > > >>>>> intents
> > > > > >>>>> > > > appear different. Look at the code for Intent.equals()
> I
> > > > > >>>>> believe, and
> > > > > >>>>> > > > you will see that Extras are not considered.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > > On Mar 24, 12:47 pm, "info+farm" <
> bilgiciftl...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Are not Google developers looking into this forum
> > > anymore?
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Then, I will be missing the detailed answers.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >>>>> > > > > info+farm
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป
> >
>
--
Dianne Hackborn
Android framework engineer
hack...@android.com
Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to
provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such
questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and
answer them.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
