So with all the input from this thread, what's the proper way to send x
number of pending intents that are unique?
I guess I'm doing it not 100% correctly (even though it seems to work for me
and the intents are spaced out enough not to interfere with each other). I
was doing it
as setData((Uri.parse("custom://"+SystemClock.elapsedRealtime())).
-rob
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com>wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
