Nested backstacks for custom viewgroups about simple-stack HOT 13 CLOSED

It's actually done, just heavily untested.

from simple-stack.

Make sure it is possible to persist state to a key inside nested backstack.

from simple-stack.

Make sure the key inside nested stack is managed by the nested stack.

Make sure that services are bound to active keys inside nested stacks as well.

from simple-stack.

Figure out that if nested key inside a nested stack receives its own local nested stack, then how to make it obvious to work with when you need to use the parent stack instead of the local one.

from simple-stack.

Service states and key-saved state view state should be managed by nested stack. Ensure that Bundleable handles this.

This means that the key state management in BackstackDelegate should be extracted and shared to NestedStack.

What did I get myself into....

from simple-stack.

Should NestedStack have a ServiceManager of its own?

from simple-stack.

.... Is the logic inside BackstackDelegate actually just a BackstackManager, and the delegate should just delegate it over to this manager? That way nested stack can also have its manager.

from simple-stack.

It is possible to leverage tearDown() for nested destruction. But initialize should set up the initial keys, using a managed state changer just like the delegate

from simple-stack.

I've been working on this for a week and apparently it's theoretically and pragmatically impossible using ContextWrappers.

Fuck my life. Out of scope for simple-stack.

from simple-stack.

Actually, it's working now?

I guess we'll have nested stacks after all, yay!

from simple-stack.

You must use the TearDown to destroy nested stack local management!

from simple-stack.

...except it breaks everything.

This is definitely out of scope, because it requires much better planning.

from simple-stack.

Thanks to the refactor stripping out BackstackManager, this is now shown in simple-stack-example-nestedstack using service-tree.

from simple-stack.