我花了更长的时间来阅读这个问答，而不是真正实现一个半正确的Android应用程序生命周期。

这是一个GPS应用程序，轮询积分，并每隔几秒钟通过线程将当前位置发送到web服务…在Ted的情况下，这可能是每5分钟轮询一次更新，然后onStop可以简单地启动Ted所关心的更新活动，如果发现了一个(异步Ted，不要像Windows程序员那样编码，否则您的程序将像Windows程序一样运行……呃，这也没那么难)。

我在onCreate中做了一些初始代码来设置活动生命周期，包括checkUpdate.start();:

...

@Override
public void onStart() {
    super.onStart();
    isRemote = true;
    checkUpdate.resume();

    locationManager.requestLocationUpdates(LocationManager.GPS_PROVIDER, 2000, 0, luh);
}

@Override
public void onPause() {
    isRemote = false;
    checkUpdate.suspend();
    locationManager.removeUpdates(luh);
    super.onStop();
}

这段代码可能是完全错误的，但它是有效的。这是我的第一个Android应用程序。

Voilà, an application that doesn't consume CPU when it's in the background, yet is instantly ready to reopen because it is in RAM (although not holding RAM as is the Android lifecycle) ... an app is always ready, it's a phone, guys/gals. If an app was to use up all the RAM and couldn't be shut down by the OS then the thing might stop ringing =P That's why the OS needs to be able to close your app when it's in the background (if your application isn't a resource hog it won't be closed BTW), so let's just write better applications.

我同意泰德的观点。我明白退出应用程序不是 “Android方式”，但它似乎不应该被排除。在这里 您可能需要一个真正的应用程序出口(不是 只是活动):

The user might want some control over which app gets killed in the case of low memory. If important app A is running in the background, then you might like to exit app B when you are done with it so that app A doesn't get killed by the operating system. If your application has sensitive data cached in memory, you might like to kill the app so that a virus/worm/rogue app can't get at it. I know the security model is supposed to prevent that, but just in case... If your application uses resources (like network, CPU, sensors, etc.) that could adversely affect the phone, then one way of ensuring that those resources are freed up is to exit the application. I understand that well-behaved apps should free up resources when they are not needed. But again, exiting the application seems like a reasonable way of ensuring that.

我会考虑阅读Addison-Wesley出版的“Android Wireless Application Development”。我刚刚完成它，它是非常彻底的。

看来你对Android平台有一些基本的误解。一开始我也对Android应用程序的生命周期感到有点沮丧，但在更深入地了解后，我开始真正享受这种方法。这本书将回答你所有的问题，甚至更多。这确实是我为Android新开发者找到的最好的资源。

Also, I think you need to let go of a line-for-line port of the existing app. In order to port your application to the Android platform, some of the application design is going to change. The application-lifecycle used is necessary as mobile devices have very limited resources relative to desktop systems and allows Android devices to run several applications in an orderly and resource-aware fashion. Do some more in depth study of the platform, and I think you will realize that what you are wanting to do is entirely feasible. Best of luck.

顺便说一下，我与艾迪生-卫斯理或与这本书有关的任何个人或组织都没有任何关系。重读了我的帖子后，我觉得我有点像个迷弟。我真的非常非常喜欢它，而且发现它非常有帮助。：）

Android应用程序的生命周期是为手机用户设计的，而不是电脑用户。

应用程序生命周期是将Linux服务器转变为消费者设备所需的极其简单的范例。

Android是基于Linux的Java，一个真正的跨平台服务器操作系统。这就是为什么它传播得这么快。应用程序生命周期封装了操作系统的底层现实。

对于手机用户来说，应用只是安装或不安装。没有奔跑或退出的概念。事实上，应用程序进程应该一直运行到操作系统释放它们以获取所拥有的资源为止。

因为这是Stack Overflow，任何阅读这篇文章的人都是计算机用户，必须关闭他们90%的知识来理解移动应用程序的生命周期。

博客文章“何时在Android应用程序中包含退出按钮”(提示:永远不要)解释得比我好得多。我希望每个Android开发者都读过这本书。

摘录:

In my experience what [the users] really want is: An unambiguous way to guarantee that an app will stop consuming resources (battery, CPU cycles, data transfer, etc.). Many users perceive that an exit button implements this requirement and ask for it to be added. Developers, looking to please their users, obligingly add one. Shortly thereafter they both fail. In most cases the exit button simply calls Activity.finish(). This is exactly equivalent to hitting the back button. Exactly. Services keep running and polling keeps happening. Users may think they've killed the app but they haven't, and soon they'll be even more annoyed. Exit behavior is now ambiguous. Should your exit button just close the Activity, or should it also stop all associated Services, Receivers, and Alarms? What should Back do? What happens if they hit Home instead? What happens if your app has a widget? Should the exit button stop that from updating too? The solution is to make the back button behave as you'd expect the exit button to. Better yet, simply stop consuming resources whenever the app isn't visible.

继续阅读完整的文章。

这是一个有这么多专家参与的有趣而有见地的讨论。我觉得这篇文章应该从Android开发的主要网站中循环回来，因为它确实围绕着Android操作系统的核心设计之一。

我还想在这里发表我的意见。

到目前为止，我对Android处理生命周期事件的方式印象深刻，它将类似web的体验概念引入原生应用。

话虽如此，我仍然认为应该有一个退出按钮。为什么?．.． 不是为了我，不是为了泰德，也不是为了在座的任何一位技术大师，而是为了满足终端用户的需求。

虽然我不是Windows的忠实粉丝，但很久以前他们引入了一个大多数终端用户都习惯的概念(X按钮)……“我想在‘我’想要的时候停止运行一个小部件”。

这并不意味着有人(操作系统、开发人员?)会根据自己的判断来处理……它仅仅意味着“我习惯的红色X按钮在哪里”。我的行为应该类似于“按下按钮结束通话”，“按下按钮关闭设备”，等等……这是一种感知。它本身带来了一种满足感，我的行动确实达到了目的。

尽管开发人员可以使用这里给出的建议来欺骗这种行为，但仍然存在这样的看法，即应用程序应该完全停止运行(现在)，由最终用户要求的独立、可信和中立的来源(OS)。