Skip to main content

Modularizing your Android app, breaking the monolith (Part 3)


On our latest article, what we did was creating a Dagger component about almost all of our features and provided a ViewModel(Factory) for every Fragment we had inside a module. As said, this is a little too much work for Dagger, the programmer and each feature. It's a total overkill of using Dagger actually, we could have stuck to a manual DI instead, but I required you to be patient.

Let me remind you of the current state of the app:


For simplicity I'm not saying in the picture that each component brings a ViewModel(Factory) to the component, please check the previous article if you are confused.

The problem:

I am using a database only in 2 modules, :feature_2 and :feature_4. The rest of the app doesn't care about the database at all. Furthermore, :feature_2 has 0 relations to my :feature_4 entities, while this last one has 2 tables related to each other ( a one to many relationship). But this is not the problem yet. The problem is related to the database being exposed for all my modules. That's really unnecessary.

An optional solution:

We could create a :db_module and install it as a module inside the features that actually need it:


This solution would be great for modules whose entities have relations to each other. In my case it's too much. IMO, it's better to separate databases completely. I'll keep one database for my :feature_4 which has 2 related entities and another database for my :feature_2 which has only one entity. Plus, it requires less work in terms of time (even if we are creating 2 databases, isn't that cool😋 )

The solution:

Completely separate databases:


In this way, the :feature_4 and :feature_2 not only are separated from all the other modules but they are also separated from each other.

Some code:
We still have to do only dependency configuration only. This is good news:

This way I'm able to get the Application instance from my :core_module and provide it for my local database. And then I can do:

Now, the same rule should apply for the other module which needs the database configuration.

Can we do more?

Sure! The API calls are still centralized. What I mean is that methods of every API call are still exposed to all the modules. Furthermore, I am not using the same base URL. So I guess we should apply what we did to our Retrofit Interface too. Instead of having one interface with a lot of methods, we can have a lot of interfaces with the respective methods for the API call. I won't stop in the implementation for this case, but I guess the below image would give the message:



The same logic as the database configuration appeals to the retrofit modularization in code also:


Conclusion
There you go, now your modules are totally independent from each-other and our multi module app is 90% ready. The last part will be covering some short topics about my background-things (AlarmManager, WorkManager) and mostly resources, layouts and values.

Stavro Xhardha

Popular posts from this blog

Modularizing your Android app, breaking the monolith (Part 1)

Inspired by a Martin Fowlers post about Micro Frontends, I decided to break my monolithic app into a modular app. I tried to read a little more about breaking monolithic apps in Android, and as far as I got, I felt confident to share my experience with you. This will be some series of blog posts where we actually try to break a simple app into a modularized Android app.

Note: You should know that I am no expert in this, so if there are false statements or mistakes please feel free to criticize, for the sake of a better development. 

What do you benefit from this approach:
Well, people are moving pretty fast nowadays and delivery is required faster and faster. So, in order to achieve this, modularising Android apps is really necessary.You can share features across different apps. Independent teams and less problems per each.Conditional features update.Quicker debugging and fixing.A feature delay doesn't delay the whole app. As per writing tests, there is not too much difference about…

From Gson to Moshi, what I learned

There is no doubt that people are getting away from GSON and I agree with those reasons too. The only advantage GSON has over other parsing libraries is that it takes a really short amount of time to set up. Furthermore, the most important thing is that Moshi is embracing Kotlin support.

First let's implement the dependency:
implementation("com.squareup.moshi:moshi:1.8.0") It's not a struggle to migrate to Moshi. It's really Gson look-a-like. The only thing to do is annotate the object with @field:Json instead of @SerializedName (which is Gsons way for JS representation):

data class User( //GSON way @SerializedName("name") val name: String, @SerializedName("user_name") val userName: String, @SerializedName("last_name") val lastName: String, @SerializedName("email") val email: String ) data class User( //Moshi way @field:Json(name = "name") val name: String, @field:Json(name = "user_name…

Modularizing your Android app, breaking the monolith (Part 2)

This is part 2 of a series of articles about modularizing Android app. If you haven't yet read the first article, you may find it here.

On our first article we just moved some classes outside the application and applied as an independent module. But what if we have dependencies pulled from the application level? This could be a small challenge. First of all, we want to clarify on how are we going to modularize the app. And depending on the previous article, I chose the by feature version of modularization. First of all, let's show some dependencies that are going to be needed in the whole app.

Note: I'm using Dagger for handling dependencies but manual DI or any dependency tool should be fine to understand this part.

So, this is my dependency schema:


Well, it's not that bad, but this isn't what we want to transform to when trying to modularize the app. If you think about it, modules that don't need a dependency, can get it quite easily. For example: A FeatureXVi…