Perhaps you yourself are getting in the way when you offer offense in this
way? I for one am glad that Dianne does not work at the sort of company you
describe, and there's really no way to take your remarks addressing her job
security but as a personal attack. I'm not sure why you're doing this
Perhaps you yourself are getting in the way when you offer offense in this
way? I for one am glad that Dianne does not work at the sort of company you
describe, and there's really no way to take your remarks addressing her job
security but as a personal attack. I'm not sure why you're doing this
Perhaps you yourself are getting in the way when you offer offense in this
way? I for one am glad that Dianne does not work at the sort of company you
describe, and there's really no way to take your remarks addressing her job
security but as a personal attack. I'm not sure why you're doing this
As I said, you are welcome to contribute patches to AOSP to improve parts of
the documentation.
I spend a significant amount of my time working on documentation. This
particular issue is a lower-priority over a lot of other stuff on my plate.
That's the great thing about an open source platform
You are not being helpful to anyone when you make the kinds of posts I
criticize. Not to anyone. You are the one getting in the way when you
take offense at it, when the clarifications I call for are exactly
what the OP posing the question really needed.
On Apr 28, 5:22 pm, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
The task managers you mention are the exception I had in mind to the
rule, so that I said "overwhelming majority of" instead of "all" in
"The overwhelming
majority of applications should never call System.exit()". But I did
not mention them explicitly, since I did not want to give the
impression th
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Indicator Veritatis wrote:
> I have worked for companies where even highly experienced and
> otherwise valuable employees were fired for making posts like the one
> you made here.
>
I don't work at those companies.
I post on this list in my spare time because I w
There are some issues with the documentation, specially in regards as to how
one should handle the lifecycle appropriately. Although, granted there are
several scenarios so there's no 'best practice' but rather 'best practice
depending on what you are doing.'
So it's probably not easy to make such
You are directing this to the wrong person. I do not call
System.exit() in any of my shipping code, not in Android, not in Sun
Java. But I have to agree with lbendlin's comments about the "paranoid
user". Yet at the same time, once corrected for the logical mistakes
in expression whose criticism Di
Calling System.exit() or even asking for it tells me that your code flow is
seriously flawed.
The lifecycle of a mobile app is complex, and as such you should follow best
practices.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Indicator Veritatis wrote:
> I have worked for companies where even highly experie
I have worked for companies where even highly experienced and
otherwise valuable employees were fired for making posts like the one
you made here.
On Apr 26, 6:37 am, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
> You are ignore all of the other replies I didn't make to other threads
> because of you.
>
> On Tue, Apr
You are ignore all of the other replies I didn't make to other threads
because of you.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Indicator Veritatis wrote:
> Actually, I think the post has had the desired effect, since Dianne
> has updated her answer with one that more directly addresses the OP's
> questi
Which of the gods?
--
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 mo
Such an "stupid" thread because someone asked how to properly shutdown an
application?
God save us if someone asks about multithreading! x
2011/4/26 Indicator Veritatis
> Actually, I think the post has had the desired effect, since Dianne
> has updated her answer with one that more directly
Actually, I think the post has had the desired effect, since Dianne
has updated her answer with one that more directly addresses the OP's
question, explaining that calling System.exit() can actually be
harmful, rather than just being always unnecessary.
Oh, and those fancy terms ARE English. Their
System.exit() will not necessarily fix this. If the application has left
its activity stack in a bad state and does this in the background, the stack
is still being maintained by the system and will be restored as per its last
state when the application's process is re-created.
Also system.exit()
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Indicator Veritatis wrote:
> In fact, one could believe you had answered it only if you confused the
> contrary and the contradictory of a non-null affirmative categorical
> statement.
>
> In fact, the mismatch between his question and your 'answer' is giving me
>
System.exit() as a feature for the paranoid user? I wish that were
never necessary. But there is yet another case where I wish I had the
app calling system.exit() itself: when the app has done a bad job of
keeping track of state, and leaves the user, yes, even the
sophisticated user, with no idea h
Dianne-
What you say is true, at least for those of us who accept the party
line Google has been preaching for years, but you have not answered
the question. In fact, one could believe you had answered it only if
you confused the contrary and the contradictory of a non-null
affirmative categorical
I have found that Android will restart your app on occasion if you
call that. I stopped using it and just call finish() now.
On Apr 25, 6:25 pm, bob wrote:
> Is it okay to call System.exit(0); to end an Android app?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "A
20 matches
Mail list logo
