Android AlarmManager why calling BroadcastReceiver?

Question

I'm currently working on an app that handles alarms. I have reach the point where I can set the alarms using the AlarmManager and everything seems to work fine, but.. In all the examples that I found, and even in the Android official docs, I have seen people using a BroadcastReceiver for the PendingIntent, and then, calling an activity or whatever they need when the alarm fires. However, I have try to just pass a simple activity to the PendingIntent for the AlarmManager like this:

Intent intent = new Intent (getApplicationContext(), AlarmActivity.class);
PendingIntent pendingIntent = PendingIntent.getActivity (this, 0, intent, 0);
AlarmManager alarmManager = (AlarmManager) getSystemService(ALARM_SERVICE);
alarmManager.set (AlarmManager.RTC_WAKEUP, timeToTrigger.getTimeInMillis(), pendingIntent);

And after testing alarms in several contexts (app in foreground, app not running, etc..) I found that the activity is always been called correctly.

So, my doubt is as simple as: Why do people use a BroadcastReceiver and in the onReceive method call an activity if you can just simple call the activity directly?

Answer 1

Android frowns on this behaviour. You shouldn't interrupt the user if he is doing something else. This is why you don't want to launch an Activity from AlarmManager. Usually, you launch a BroadcastReceiver, which, if it wants to get the user's attention, will post a Notification. The user can then open the app via the Notification whenever he wants to.

Also, often you just want to perform some background process (like fetching data from a server, or updating some statistics), which doesn't require any user-interaction. In this case you would also launch a BroadcastReceiver or Service and not an Activity.

Starting with Android 10 there are more restrictions about background apps launching activities. Therefore, with current versions of Android it has become more difficult to do this. See https://developer.android.com/guide/components/activities/background-starts

So basically, even though it does work, it is not considered "respecting the user" and it probably won't work in the future.