Assigned
Status Update
Comments
su...@gmail.com <su...@gmail.com> #2
Any updates on this? It's been a month already since I reported it, and it seems this crash is occurring quite frequently for my users.
ru...@gmail.com <ru...@gmail.com> #3
I am still regularly receiving reports about this issue, and it seems it has not been addressed in the latest 1.4.0-rc01 release.
Description
Component used: androidx.startup:startup-runtime
Version used: 1.0.0
Devices/Android versions reproduced on: N/A
Feature Request
I would like to know if it would be possible or if there are any plans to allow
androidx.startup.Initializer.Initializer
to define dependencies of non-concreteInitializer
classes, these could be simple abstractions that can be defined as dependencies. I suspect that this request would require some reworking on how dependencies are discovered fromandroidx.startup.AppInitializer
and potentially breakinitializeComponent
method when used with an abstraction?Use case
In the time that I have been using
startup-runtime
I have often had difficulty defining dependencies without having to cross multi-module boundaries, for example:Let's say I have a few core feature modules that handle groups of initialisation tasks that I define to run in this order (logging -> dependency injector -> work managers) which I can simply solve by having a core module with concrete implementations of (logging and dependency injector) and then having an abstract class that has a dependency on the dependency injector that all of my other features extend.
This works fine and well but what if I want to have another layer of an initialise which I would extend in some other modules that should be a dependency to other
Initializers
?