I’m trying to understand how companion objects lifetimes interact with the Android lifecycle. I have...

# android

[Ellen Spertus]

I’m trying to understand how companion objects lifetimes interact with the Android lifecycle. I have an app that includes something like this:

class MainActivity {
    override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
        setContentView(R.layout.activity_main)
        Metadata.initialize()
    }
}

class Metadata {
    companion object {
        boolean initialized = false

        fun initialize(context: Context) {
            check(!initialized)
            // do stuff (omitted)
            initialized = true
        }
    }
}

Sometimes my app fails because the check at the beginning of Metadata.initalize() fails, which implies that the companion object is surviving the destruction of MainActivity, despite their presumably being in the same process. Could someone help me understand why the companion object stays around even if the activity needs to be re-created?

[Casey Brooks]

Companion objects are analogous to static fields in Java. They stick around for the entire application lifetime, not for the lifetime of an Activity instance.

[Zach Klippenstein (he/him) [MOD]]

An Android process doesn’t die when an activity is destroyed, or even when all activities in the process are destroyed. The OS will “cache” processes when possible to decrease startup time if the user returns to an app.

[Ellen Spertus]

Thanks! The Android documentation says: “The system never kills an activity directly to free up memory. Instead, it kills the process in which the activity runs, destroying not only the activity but everything else running in the process, as well.” https://developer.android.com/guide/components/activities/activity-lifecycle#asem

[Ellen Spertus]

Would the best practice be to make this change:

fun initialize(context: Context) {
    if (!initialized) {
        // do stuff (omitted)
        initialized = true
    }
}

[Casey Brooks]

You should probably avoid having companion objects be tied to application/activity lifecycles in any way. Use ViewModels for managing data that requires explicit initialization/cleanup in response to the app lifecycle

[Casey Brooks]

https://developer.android.com/topic/libraries/architecture/viewmodel

[Ellen Spertus]

Gotcha, @Casey Brooks. I was planning to switch to from companion objects anyways for other reasons (including testability).

[Ellen Spertus]

@Zach Klippenstein (he/him) [MOD] Do you know anywhere the behavior you describe is documented so I can understand it better?

[Casey Brooks]

@Ellen Spertus This article describes the memory model of Android apps, and the behavior mentioned above is described in the last section https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/memory-overview#SwitchingApps

[Ellen Spertus]

I often wish that Android programming weren’t so complicated, but at least we get to program in Kotlin, so that’s a consolation.

[codeslubber]

a lot of the complexity is just a function of not great initial design, the improvements that came from the ViewModel stuff illustrate that, just the torture of orientation changes was so much unneeded suffering cast on thousands of people..