I'm fine tuning (read: writing) my examples for my Tuesday session at Web 2.0 "Building Your First Android Experience". Pretty soon I may even getting around to packing.
I can't believe it's been two years since my first Web 2.0. And now I get to talk about Android! Last year I ran a panel, which was a lot of fun, but I'm better at geeking out with codez.
For anyone who's looking ahead to the session, you can find the slides here: http://www.slideshare.net/thillerson/first-android-experience and the code here: http://github.com/thillerson/first_android_experience.
If you're going, whether you get a chance to see my session or not, make sure you drop by booth 715. Anthony Franco will also be speaking along with Michael Clark of Photobucket, which you can read about at Anthony's blog.
See you there.
So, as you may or may not have noticed, there's a little bit of a flap in the Flex community. You can read more here, but the short story is that to make Flex 4 compatible with Flex 3 code, since they may need to be used alongside eachother, Adobe's plan is to prefix Flex 4 classes with Fx to avoid namespace collisions with Flex 3 classes.
For instance: Flex 3 -> <mx:Button>, and Flex 4 -> <mx:FxButton> <FxButton>
I understand the problem a bit - most of it has to do with difficulties matching classes with CSS definitions to map to the classes, as I understand it. I appreciate how this could be a problem, but my position is simple. It's a slippery slope. Please, Adobe, don't ruin the good thing you have going, especially as you start to think about other places the Flex language could be used.
Here's what I mean. Look at this mess:
<LinearLayout
android:orientation="horizontal"
android:layout_width="fill_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:layout_alignParentCenter=”true”
android:gravity="center">
<TextView
android:layout_width="wrap_content"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:textAppearance="@style/small_grey_bold"
android:text="@string/button_one_title"
/>
<Button
android:id="@+id/button_one"
android:layout_width="wrap_content"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:text="@string/button_one_label"
/>
</LinearLayout>
That's a simple, centered, horizontal container with two components: a label and a button, in Android's layout markup. It centers its children and is aligned center in its parent. In a lot of ways, it looks similar to Flex. The tag names correspond to Android framework classes. As far as that goes, it’s simple to see what’s going on here as you read and try to find your place. But look at the android: namespace AT THE ATTRIBUTE LEVEL. Ugly. I’d go so far as Fugly. Also, are attributes camelCased or snake_cased or both? Each one is different. There’s even a android:layout_gravity and an android:gravity. I love Android, but its layout is a mess.
For contrast, here’s a similar layout in Flex:
<mx:HBox
width="100%"
horizontalCenter="0"
verticalAlign="middle"
horizontalAlign="center">
<mx:Label styleName="small_grey_bold" />
<mx:Button id="button_one" label="{button_one_label}" />
</mx:HBox>
See how much more clean that is? There are a few magical incantations (from a n00b’s perspective) like horizontalCenter=”0” - they’ll have to remember how some of the layout rules go, but the rest is pretty intuitive, and there’s way less boilerplate. In 99% of the cases in Android you HAVE to specify layout_width and layout_height or the precompiler complains at you. Why? No sensible defaults is one mark of a bad framework.
Someone once told me a heuristic for recognizing a good framework: When writing code, if you don’t remember what you need to write then guess. If you’re right, it’s a good framework. If you need documentation until you have it by rote, it’s not a good framework. Flex is a good framework. You’re generally rewarded by being able to intuitively guess what the right attributes are.
I chose Android’s layout language to compare because it’s particularly nasty, I think. If I knew enough HTML/CSS, I’d compare that too, because I think it’s way too overwrought. And anyway, two languages where positioning is in one language and the containers are in another? How dumb is that?
My point is that Flex, for any other faults people can pick out about it, has layout DOWN. It’s the best declarative layout language I’ve had experience with. Bruce Eckle agrees, and says “Flex is a DSL for building UIs” (paraphrased).
Now, does Adobe ruin this whole thing when they add Fx prefixes? No, not catastrophically, but like I said, it’s a slippery slope. Every concession that clutters the language puts a dent in the area where Flex really shines. As a developer that matters to me. We can look forward to a time where Flex is available as a layout language on more than just the web, and if I had the choice, I’d use Flex over Android’s layout language if I could, because I have to speak this language day after day, and I’d rather get my point across as quickly as possible, because that impacts my efficiency, my peace of mind, and ultimately how hard I have to work to build good user experiences, which is the goal we all share.
It’s been said before, so look around for it on the web: Aesthetics matter. (here's one quick let-me-google-that-for-you) Adobe, please keep in mind what makes Flex the best layout language, and don’t ruin it, even a little. Stay strong.
In Android it's fairly easy to set the indeterminate progress indicator of the current window spinning from an Activity while a thread is working or something. This code outlines it how to do it.
I figured it was that easy when I went to do it for a ListActivity, but it turns out there's a twist. For that feature request to work, you need to call setContentView, but ListActivities come with a default view already set, so setContentView never gets called. That means the indicator never gets requested and doesn't show up.
To get around that problem one way, just set a custom list view, as described here, and in onCreate call setContentView.
Just a quick PSA incase you thought I forgot about this blog.
