So I have a method that binds to the service.
fun bindService() {
val intent = Intent(this, BluetoothService::class.java)
bindService(intent, serviceConnection, Context.BIND_AUTO_CREATE)
}
Inside onCreate method I use this code:
bindService()
launch {
delay(500L)
service = serviceConnection.serviceBinder?.getService() as BluetoothService
}
Is there more elegant way to wait for the service to be bound than using delay()?
I wrote this just now, and haven't tried it, but hopefully something like it could work. The magic is in suspendCoroutine, which pauses the current coroutine and then gives you a continuation thingy you can use to resume it later. In our case we resume it when the onServiceConnected is called.
// helper class which holds data
class BoundService(
private val context: Context,
val name: ComponentName?,
val service: IBinder?,
val conn: ServiceConnection) {
fun unbind() {
context.unbindService(conn)
}
}
// call within a coroutine to bind service, waiting for onServiceConnected
// before the coroutine resumes
suspend fun bindServiceAndWait(context: Context, intent: Intent, flags: Int) = suspendCoroutine<BoundService> { continuation ->
val conn = object: ServiceConnection {
override fun onServiceConnected(name: ComponentName?, service: IBinder?) {
continuation.resume(BoundService(context, name, service, this))
}
override fun onServiceDisconnected(name: ComponentName?) {
// ignore, not much we can do
}
}
context.bindService(intent, conn, flags)
}
// just an example
suspend fun exampleUsage() {
val bs = bindServiceAndWait(context, intent, Context.BIND_AUTO_CREATE)
try {
// ...do something with bs.service...
} finally {
bs.unbind()
}
}
Related
I have my code below
interface Listener {
fun onGetData(data: Int)
fun onClose()
}
class MyEmitter {
var listener: Listener? = null
fun sendData(data: Int) = listener?.onGetData(data)
fun close() = listener?.onClose()
}
fun handleInput(myEmitter: MyEmitter) = channelFlow {
myEmitter.listener = object:Listener {
override fun onGetData(data: Int) { trySend(data) }
override fun onClose() { close() }
}
}
fun main(): Unit = runBlocking {
val myEmitter = MyEmitter()
handleInput(myEmitter).collect {
println(it)
}
myEmitter.sendData(1)
myEmitter.sendData(2)
myEmitter.close()
}
Whenever I send the data e.g. myEmitter.sendData(1), it does get into trySend(data), but the result is closed.
Why is it closed? How can I keep it open?
I think it's not documented terribly clearly, but just like the flow builder, the channelFlow's Flow is considered complete once the suspend lambda returns. Since all you are doing is setting a listener and not waiting around, it will return almost immediately. When a channel Flow is completed, it's channel is also closed.
If you want your channelFlow to stay open until the Flow is canceled, call awaitClose() at the end. This function suspends until the channel is closed, so it will hold your Flow open until it's canceled or the event in your listener closes the Channel.
fun handleInput(myEmitter: MyEmitter) = channelFlow {
myEmitter.listener = object:Listener {
override fun onGetData(data: Int) { trySend(data) }
override fun onClose() { close() }
}
awaitClose()
}
If you are familiar with callbackFlow, it is a specialized version of channelFlow and it enforces the awaitClose() call because it is meant for waiting for a listener, so there's no reason you would ever not want to await. It's also where you can deregister any listener you created inside the flow builder.
To get this working, I did 3 things
Add awaitClose to ensure the flow is not terminated
Move the entire flow behind launch, so that it is not blocking the main() function flow
Add a little delay before myEmitter.sendData(1), so that to ensure the launch get triggered first before doing the external sendData.
Full changed code as below
interface Listener {
fun onGetData(data: Int)
fun onClose()
}
class MyEmitter {
var listener: Listener? = null
fun sendData(data: Int) = listener?.onGetData(data)
fun close() = listener?.onClose()
}
fun handleInput(myEmitter: MyEmitter) = channelFlow {
myEmitter.listener = object:Listener {
override fun onGetData(data: Int) { trySend(data) }
override fun onClose() { close() }
}
awaitClose { myEmitter.listener = null } // Need awaitClose to keep the flow alive
}
fun main(): Unit = runBlocking {
val myEmitter = MyEmitter()
launch { // Need to run to avoid it from blocking the main() function flow due to having `awaitClose` there
handleInput(myEmitter).collect {
println(it)
}
}
delay(100) // Add some delay to get this triggered after the launch run
myEmitter.sendData(1)
myEmitter.sendData(2)
myEmitter.close()
}
The 3rd step is a little hack I think.
I am trying to create a polling mechanism with kotlin coroutines using sharedFlow and want to stop when there are no subscribers and active when there is at least one subscriber. My question is, is sharedFlow the right choice in this scenario or should I use channel. I tried using channelFlow but I am unaware how to close the channel (not cancel the job) outside the block body. Can someone help? Here's the snippet.
fun poll(id: String) = channelFlow {
while (!isClosedForSend) {
try {
send(repository.getDetails(id))
delay(MIN_REFRESH_TIME_MS)
} catch (throwable: Throwable) {
Timber.e("error -> ${throwable.message}")
}
invokeOnClose { Timber.e("channel flow closed.") }
}
}
You can use SharedFlow which emits values in a broadcast fashion (won't emit new value until the previous one is consumed by all the collectors).
val sharedFlow = MutableSharedFlow<String>()
val scope = CoroutineScope(Job() + Dispatchers.IO)
var producer: Job()
scope.launch {
val producer = launch() {
sharedFlow.emit(...)
}
sharedFlow.subscriptionCount
.map {count -> count > 0}
.distinctUntilChanged()
.collect { isActive -> if (isActive) stopProducing() else startProducing()
}
fun CoroutineScope.startProducing() {
producer = launch() {
sharedFlow.emit(...)
}
}
fun stopProducing() {
producer.cancel()
}
First of all, when you call channelFlow(block), there is no need to close the channel manually. The channel will be closed automatically after the execution of block is done.
I think the "produce" coroutine builder function may be what you need. But unfortunately, it's still an experimental api.
fun poll(id: String) = someScope.produce {
invokeOnClose { Timber.e("channel flow closed.") }
while (true) {
try {
send(repository.getDetails(id))
// delay(MIN_REFRESH_TIME_MS) //no need
} catch (throwable: Throwable) {
Timber.e("error -> ${throwable.message}")
}
}
}
fun main() = runBlocking {
val channel = poll("hello")
channel.receive()
channel.cancel()
}
The produce function will suspended when you don't call the returned channel's receive() method, so there is no need to delay.
UPDATE: Use broadcast for sharing values across multiple ReceiveChannel.
fun poll(id: String) = someScope.broadcast {
invokeOnClose { Timber.e("channel flow closed.") }
while (true) {
try {
send(repository.getDetails(id))
// delay(MIN_REFRESH_TIME_MS) //no need
} catch (throwable: Throwable) {
Timber.e("error -> ${throwable.message}")
}
}
}
fun main() = runBlocking {
val broadcast = poll("hello")
val channel1 = broadcast.openSubscription()
val channel2 = broadcast.openSubscription()
channel1.receive()
channel2.receive()
broadcast.cancel()
}
I'm trying to use an extension function to CoroutineScope to launch some asynchronous work.
I'm not sure how to call this method from my main class, see below:
class MyService {
fun CoroutineScope.getFoo() = async(IO|Single|Default) { ... }
}
class MyProgram(val service : MyService) : CoroutineScope {
fun main() {
launch {
// Doesn't work, unresloved `service.getFoo`.
val deferred = service.getFoo() getFoo
// Works, but looks a bit odd IMO.
val deferred = with(service) { getFoo() }
deferred.await()
}
}
}
I know I could just move the async {} keyword to my main method, but in this way, the caller would have to decide the scheduler.
The service knows the nature of its work (IO/Computation bound single-threaded?, etc) and I think it should be the one deciding the scheduler.
As far as I understand your intent is to let the service specify the scheduler. Why not split the specification of the scheduler and the decision to run asynchronously?
Let the service function be suspendable and use withContext to specify the scheduler.
And let the caller decide, if the function should run asynchronously.
class MyService {
suspend fun getFoo() = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
//work
}
}
abstract class MyProgram(val service: MyService) : CoroutineScope {
fun main() {
launch {
val deferred = async { service.getFoo() }
//some work
deferred.await()
}
}
}
Why not make getFoo a normal function and pass in the scope:
fun getFoo(scope: CoroutineScope) = scope.async {
//work }
}
launch {
service.getFoo(this)
}
Consider an asynchronous API that reports progress on its operations:
suspend fun operationWithIO(input: String, progressUpdate: (String) -> Unit): String {
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
// ...
}
}
Is it possible to implement calls to progressUpdate such that callbacks are handled on the caller's dispatcher? Or is there a better way to deliver status updates back to the caller?
You should send progress updates on a channel. That will allow the caller to listen to the channel using whatever dispatcher it wants.
suspend fun operationWithIO(input: String, progressChannel: Channel<String>): String {
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
// ...
progressChannel.send("Done!")
progressChannel.close()
}
}
The caller can use it by doing something like this:
val progressChannel = Channel<String>()
someScope.launch {
operationWithIO(input, progressChannel)
}
// Remember the call to progressChannel.close(), so that this iteration stops.
for (progressUpdate in progressChannel) {
println(progressUpdate)
}
How about wrapping the callback function and calling the wrapped function:
/** Return a new callback that invokes this callback on the current context. */
suspend fun <T> ((T) -> Unit).onCurrentContext(): (T) -> Unit =
coroutineContext.let { context ->
{ value: T ->
runBlocking {
launch(context) {
this#onCurrentContext.invoke(value)
}
}
}
}
/** Perform a background operation, delivering status updates on the caller's context. */
suspend fun operationWithIO(statusUpdate: (String) -> Unit): String {
val cb = statusUpdate.onCurrentContext()
return withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
cb("Phase 1")
delay(150)
cb("Phase 2")
delay(150)
"Result"
}
}
// In use
runBlocking {
val result = operationWithIO {
println("received callback status $it")
}
println("result is $result")
}
I can't use "by lazy" because the callbacks require suspendCoroutine, which borks in android if it blocks the main thread, so I have to use the following "cache the result" pattern over and over. Is there a way to wrap it in a funButUseCachedResultsIfTheyAlreadyExist pattern to encapsulate the xCached object?
private var cameraDeviceCached: CameraDevice? = null
private suspend fun cameraDevice(): CameraDevice {
cameraDeviceCached?.also { return it }
return suspendCoroutine { cont: Continuation<CameraDevice> ->
... deep callbacks with cont.resume(camera) ...
}.also {
cameraDeviceCached = it
}
}
When what I'd really like to write is
private suspend fun cameraDevice(): CameraDevice = theMagicFunction { cont ->
... deep callbacks with cont.resume(camera) ...
}
You can build a generalized solution by wrapping an async call as follows:
import kotlinx.coroutines.*
import kotlinx.coroutines.CoroutineStart.LAZY
class LazySuspendFun<out T>(
scope: CoroutineScope,
private val block: suspend () -> T
) {
private val deferred = scope.async(Dispatchers.Unconfined, LAZY) { block() }
suspend operator fun invoke() = deferred.await()
}
fun <T> CoroutineScope.lazySuspendFun(block: suspend () -> T) =
LazySuspendFun(this, block)
This is a simple example of how you can use it. Note that we are able to compose them so that we use a lazy-inited value as a dependency to getting another one:
val fetchToken = lazySuspendFun<String> {
suspendCoroutine { continuation ->
Thread {
info { "Fetching token" }
sleep(3000)
info { "Got token" }
continuation.resume("hodda_")
}.start()
}
}
val fetchPosts = lazySuspendFun<List<String>> {
val token = fetchToken()
suspendCoroutine { continuation ->
Thread {
info { "Fetching posts" }
sleep(3000)
info { "Got posts" }
continuation.resume(listOf("${token}post1", "${token}post2"))
}
}
}
On the calling side you must be inside some coroutine context so you can call the suspending functions:
myScope.launch {
val posts = fetchPosts()
...
}
This solution is robust enough that you can concurrently request the value several times and the initializer will run only once.
I'll write this as an answer, since it's not possible to post much code in comments.
What you're looking for is something like this:
private suspend fun cameraDevice() = theMagicFunction {
CameraDevice()
}()
suspend fun theMagicFunction(block: ()->CameraDevice): () -> CameraDevice {
var cameraDeviceCached: CameraDevice? = null
return fun(): CameraDevice {
cameraDeviceCached?.also { return it }
return suspendCoroutine { cont: Continuation<CameraDevice> ->
cont.resume(block())
}.also {
cameraDeviceCached = it
}
}
}
Unfortunately, this will not compile, since closures cannot be suspendable, and neither are local functions.
Best I can suggest, unless I miss a solution there, is to encapsulate this in a class, if this variable bothers you too much.