我只是想在这里为这篇文章的未来读者补充一个更正。这个细微的差别我已经不理解很长一段时间了，所以我想确保你们没有人会犯同样的错误:

如果栈上有多个activity, System.exit()不会杀死你的应用。实际发生的情况是进程被杀死，并立即重新启动，堆栈上少了一个活动。当你的应用程序被强制关闭对话框杀死时，甚至当你试图从DDMS中杀死进程时，也会发生这种情况。据我所知，这是一个完全没有记录的事实。

The short answer is, if you want to exit your application, you've got to keep track of all activities in your stack and finish() ALL of them when the user wants to exit (and no, there is no way to iterate through the Activity stack, so you have to manage all of this yourself). Even this does not actually kill the process or any dangling references you may have. It simply finishes the activities. Also, I'm not sure whether Process.killProcess(Process.myPid()) works any better; I haven't tested it.

另一方面，如果你可以将活动保留在堆栈中，还有另一个方法可以让事情变得超级简单:Activity.moveTaskToBack(true)将简单地将你的进程作为背景并显示主屏幕。

长的答案包括对这种行为背后的哲学的解释。这一理论是基于以下几个假设:

First of all, this only happens when your app is in the foreground. If it is in the background the process will terminate just fine. However, if it is in the foreground, the OS assumes that the user wants to keep doing whatever he/she was doing. (If you are trying to kill the process from DDMS, you should hit the home button first, and then kill it) It also assumes that each activity is independent of all the other activities. This is often true, for example in the case that your app launches the Browser Activity, which is entirely separate and was not written by you. The Browser Activity may or may not be created on the same Task, depending on its manifest attributes. It assumes that each of your activities is completely self-reliant and can be killed/restored in a moment's notice. (I rather dislike this particular assumption, since my app has many activities which rely on a large amount of cached data, too large to be efficiently serialized during onSaveInstanceState, but whaddya gonna do?) For most well-written Android apps this should be true, since you never know when your app is going to be killed off in the background. The final factor is not so much an assumption, but rather a limitation of the OS: killing the app explicitly is the same as the app crashing, and also the same as Android killing the app to reclaim memory. This culminates in our coup de grace: since Android can't tell if the app exited or crashed or was killed in the background, it assumes the user wants to return where they left off, and so the ActivityManager restarts the process.

仔细想想，这是适合这个平台的。首先，这正是当进程在后台被杀死，用户返回到它时所发生的情况，因此它需要在它停止的地方重新启动。其次，这是当应用程序崩溃并呈现可怕的强制关闭对话框时所发生的情况。

Say I want my users to be able to take a picture and upload it. I launch the Camera Activity from my activity, and ask it to return an image. The Camera is pushed onto the top of my current Task (rather than being created in its own Task). If the Camera has an error and it crashes, should that result in the whole app crashing? From the standpoint of the user, only the Camera failed, and they should be returned to their previous activity. So it just restarts the process with all the same Activities in the stack, minus the Camera. Since your Activities should be designed so that they can be killed and restored at the drop of a hat, this shouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, not all apps can be designed that way, so it is a problem for many of us, no matter what Romain Guy or anyone else tells you. So, we need to use workarounds.

所以，我最后的建议是:

Don't try to kill the process. Either call finish() on all activities or call moveTaskToBack(true). If your process crashes or gets killed, and if, like me, you need the data that was in memory which is now lost, you'll need to return to the root activity. To do this, you should call startActivity() with an Intent that contains the Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_CLEAR_TOP flag. If you want to kill your app from the Eclipse DDMS perspective, it had better not be in the foreground, or it will restart itself. You should press the Home button first, and then kill the process.

目前，我在我的应用程序中实现了以下内容。可能这些有助于从应用程序中移动出来，无论你想要的是什么。我从操作栏菜单中调用这个函数。

public static void exitApplication(Context context) {
    if (Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= Build.VERSION_CODES.HONEYCOMB) {
        exitApplicationHC(context);
    }
    else {
        exitApplicationPreHC(context);
    }
}

private static void exitApplicationPreHC(Context context) {
    Intent i = new Intent(context, LoginActivity.class);
    i.putExtra(EXTRA_EXIT, true);
    i.addFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_CLEAR_TOP);
    i.addFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_NEW_TASK);
    context.startActivity(i);
    if (context instanceof Activity) {
        ((Activity) context).finish();
    }
}

@TargetApi(Build.VERSION_CODES.HONEYCOMB)
private static void exitApplicationHC(Context context) {
    Intent i = new Intent(context, LoginActivity.class);
    i.putExtra(EXTRA_EXIT, true);
    i.addFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_CLEAR_TOP);
    i.addFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_NEW_TASK);
    i.addFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_CLEAR_TASK);
    context.startActivity(i);
}

作为一个Android开发新手，我开始熟悉生命周期等等。作为一名Android用户，我一直讨厌自己无法删除应用程序。

为什么用户应该信任一个应用程序?我们可能认为把应用放在后台是“安全的”，但用户真的安全吗? 我们可能会爱上“新”做事方式的天才，但并不是所有的应用程序都写得很完美，甚至很好。有些可能是恶意的，并试图保持后台进程一直运行。有些可能是出于好意，但很混乱。

我讨厌打开浏览器或谷歌，从我上次离开的地方开始，不得不向后堆叠几十个缓慢的页面，只是为了感觉我有一个干净的开始。用户应该拥有最终的控制权。有多少次技术支持告诉我们“重启我们的机器”或“关闭程序并重新启动”?用户需要感觉他们是在重新启动应用，而不是恢复一个可能会让他们沮丧或给他们带来问题的状态。

你不能指望人们保留一个复杂的环境模型，只是为了使用一个应用程序来完成一些事情。人们觉得自己可以控制铅笔和纸，因为这体现在他们对铅笔和纸的行为和未来行为的体验中。 软件是魔术，它发生在幕后。它的行为规则就像创建它的开发者一样反复无常。

We should try to design appliances that relate to an underlying, almost physical, model that is robust and reliable and truly intuitive to the user. "Killing" an app is something a user can embrace. It's like throwing out a pile of scratch paper and starting over; closing a book and putting it back on the shelf. Magic has its place for dedicated professionals who can invest themselves in a particular world, such as video editing or animation systems. And these users often contribute to the features themselves and so are comfortable with them. But everyday users deserve at least a few really grounded options they can rely on regardless of sophistication level, in my opinion. I'm for an easy way to exit a process completely even if it is not the target model the system aspires to.

All of my applications have quit buttons... and I quite frequently get positive comments from users because of it. I don't care if the platform was designed in a fashion that applications shouldn't need them. Saying "don't put them there" is kind of ridiculous. If the user wants to quit... I provide them the access to do exactly that. I don't think it reduces how Android operates at all and seems like a good practice. I understand the life cycle... and my observation has been that Android doesn't do a good job at handling it.... and that is a basic fact.

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)。

这场争论可以归结为一个古老的问题:究竟是开发人员最了解，还是用户最了解。所有人为因素领域的专业设计师每天都在与这个问题作斗争。

Ted指出，市场上下载最多的应用之一是“应用杀手”。当人们停止应用时，他们会获得额外的血清素。他们已经习惯了台式机/笔记本电脑。它能让事情快速发展。它能让处理器保持凉爽，风扇也不会打开。它耗电更少。

当你认为移动设备是一艘小得多的船时，你就会特别感激他们“抛弃你不再需要的东西”的动机。现在，Android的开发者们认为操作系统才是最清楚的，退出一个应用程序已经过时了。我全心全意地支持这一点。

然而，我也认为你不应该让用户感到沮丧，即使这种沮丧是出于他们自己的无知。因此，我认为有一个“退出”选项是很好的设计，即使它只是一个安慰剂按钮，只是关闭一个视图。