And here the Voyager lemmy community insists it’s an OS issue.
Comment on Why doesn't Android save app memory into storage instead of killing the process in RAM?
affenlehrer@feddit.org 1 week ago
When you develop an Android app it follows a defined lifecycle. The app is notified about changing states and is supposed to persist it’s data in some of them. So ideally you wouldn’t even notice that the app was killed since it would continue exactly where it was killed.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
bazsy@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That’s because voyager is a web app. It is a well designed and integrated PWA which makes it look and feel close to a native mobile app. The above mentioned preferred solution is Android specific and many multiplatform apps skip such optimization.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Nice! Thank you! That puts a lot of things in their proper context!!
owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
This is it, and it’s arguably a much better model. Apps are able to manage their own persistent storage, and you can always be sure that your RAM is actually RAM (and not deal with the speed and timing issues that result in you “RAM” actually being flash memory).
Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Problem is that it’s not at all trivial to implement, so it often isn’t implemented.
owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
That’s true. But it’s also not trivial to implement an app that may have its “RAM” located on disk. It’s a complex problem with multiple solutions, and giving apps the freedom to do what they want with it is the way Android structured things.