There is really no point disposing the display event receiver
anymore. Moreover, it's hard to choose a good time to do it
since the Choreographer only supports one-shot callbacks now.
So let's made the code simpler.
Bug: 5721047
Change-Id: I8533a54e93a787e0ca30d99a1f1eea85534b13b9
Removed the listeners and schedule animation / draw methods.
Instead all requests are posted as one-shot callbacks, which is a
better match for how clients actually use the Choreographer.
Bug: 5721047
Change-Id: I113180b2713a300e4444d0d987f52b8157b7ac15
Phone app will use this for actual phone calling, coping with
IccProvider, etc.
Add unit tests for the method, and stripSeparators() which is missing
Bug: 5546664
Change-Id: I49b996abe7a44f7db4301b62f667189281fc40e9
In the past, we used a null reference to signify a user-created Element. The
use of DataType.NONE for user-created Elements thus required an update to our
Element compatibility check.
Change-Id: I3293a645eff85c9040487c22f3a3240862f74350
Also clean up the Choreographer so that it doesn't directly extend
Handler and so that it doesn't schedule animation or drawing unless
there are listeners or callbacks attached.
Bug: 5721047
Change-Id: I35350c8d41d4fa3f8c8c7bc43edd82e581b55a68
The synchronization barrier enables selectively blocking
execution of synchronous messages until the barrier is released.
Asynchronous messages may continue running in the meantime.
The barrier is intended to be used to implement more sophisticated
scheduling policies related to view hierarchy traversals. While
traversals are pending, most messages posted to the message queue
must be held up. This is to satisfy the invariant that traversals
will occur before subsequently posted messages are handled.
The exception to this rule are "asynchronous" messages that represent
external events or interrupts that come from other components such
as VSYNC pulses, input events or sensor events. Because these messages
are typically delivered at arbitrary times, they are independent of
traversals or other typical synchronization boundaries.
Messages can now be flagged as asynchronous to indicate that they
are weakly ordered.
Bug: 5721047
Change-Id: I1446dcfbc896f33b48355adc28967ace8c8c9b9b
The framework tries to have a focused view all the time. For
that purpose when a view's focus is cleared the focus is given
to the first focusable found from the top. The implementation
of this behavior was causing the following issues:
1. If the fist focusable View tries to clear its focus it
was getting focus but the onFocusChange callbacks were not
properly invoked. Specifically, the onFocusChange for
gaining focus was called first and then the same
callback for clearing focus. Note that the callback
for clearing focus is called when the View is already
focused.
2. If not the first focusable View tries to clear focus,
the focus is given to another one but the callback
for getting focus was called before the one for clearing,
so client code may be mislead that there is more than
one focused view at a time.
3. (Nit) The implementaion of clearFocus and unFocus in ViewGroup
was calling the super implementaion when there is a
focused child. Since there could be only one focused View,
having a focused child means that the group is not focused
and the call to the super implementation is not needed.
4. Added unit tests that verify the correct behavior, i.e.
the focus of the first focused view cannot be cleared
which means that no focus change callbacks are invoked.
The callbacks should be called in expected order.
Now the view focus clear precedes the view focus gain
callback. However, in between is invoked the global
focus change callback with the correct values. We may
want to call that one after the View callbacks. If
needed we can revisit this.
Change-Id: I8cfb141c948141703093cf6fa2037be60861cee0
this simplify our EGL wrapper implementation a lot.
This wrapping is no longer needed now that we can only
support a single underlaying EGL implementation.
Change-Id: I8213df7ac69daac447f1fe6e37044b78aac4e9a9
