Closed fablue closed 5 years ago
Should the size limit of the bundle need to be considered when you go through this approach?
Related SO Question
Hey, thanks for the comment! Honestly, I didn't even know about this issue =/
Currently, I think we should not care 🤔 If you are passing such big data to your destination, then maybe the approach of bundles itself is not correct.
I personally think one should just pass a list of id's to bundles/Destinations not the complete list of objects itself and that the ViewModel is responsible for getting the data later.
But I also think that it would be pretty cool if the library (later on) could handle such a case! The only thing is:
I am pretty proud, that Kompass could theoretically be used with fragments/activities that do not know about Kompass, because it put's the arguments into the bundle like a human would do it too (and should later be more configurable). We would break this feature/idea when we do not implement it correctly?
@youfacepalm What do you think: How important is this issue? 🤔
@fablue What you said makes sense. I think focusing on state retention during process death should be the top priority for now.
Great library btw 👍
@youfacepalm I am glad you appreciate it 😌
Kompass doesn't keep the current state on process-death. Routing to a certain destination, terminating the app, re-opening will lead route to the last destination. This could be changed by separating lambdas and destinations from inside the backstack and serializing the backstack to the onSaveInstance bundle.