Pros of Android-CleanArchitecture

• More comprehensive implementation of Clean Architecture principles
• Includes detailed documentation and explanations of architectural decisions
• Provides a more robust example with real-world use cases

Cons of Android-CleanArchitecture

• Slightly more complex structure, which may be overwhelming for beginners
• Less focus on modern Android development practices like Jetpack Compose
• Older project with less frequent updates

Code Comparison

Android-CleanArchitecture:

class GetUserDetails @Inject constructor(
    private val userRepository: UserRepository
) : UseCase<GetUserDetails.Params, UserEntity>() {

    override suspend fun run(params: Params) = userRepository.user(params.userId)

    data class Params(val userId: Int)
}

android-clean-architecture-boilerplate:

class GetUser @Inject constructor(
    private val userRepository: UserRepository
) : SingleUseCase<User, GetUser.Params>() {

    override fun buildUseCaseObservable(params: Params): Single<User> {
        return userRepository.getUser(params.userId)
    }

    data class Params(val userId: String)
}

The code comparison shows that both projects implement similar use case structures, but Android-CleanArchitecture uses suspend functions and coroutines, while android-clean-architecture-boilerplate relies on RxJava's Single for asynchronous operations. This reflects the different approaches to handling asynchronous tasks in each project.

Pros of architecture-samples

• Official Google sample, regularly updated with latest Android development practices
• Demonstrates multiple architectural approaches (MVI, MVVM, etc.)
• Includes Jetpack Compose examples alongside XML-based UI

Cons of architecture-samples

• May be overwhelming for beginners due to multiple architecture examples
• Less focused on a single, opinionated clean architecture implementation
• Doesn't include as many real-world use cases as android-clean-architecture-boilerplate

Code Comparison

architecture-samples (MVVM example):

@HiltViewModel
class TasksViewModel @Inject constructor(
    private val tasksRepository: TasksRepository
) : ViewModel() {
    private val _forceUpdate = MutableLiveData(false)
    val tasks: LiveData<Result<List<Task>>> = _forceUpdate.switchMap { forceUpdate ->
        if (forceUpdate) {
            _dataLoading.value = true
            viewModelScope.launch {
                tasksRepository.refreshTasks()
                _dataLoading.value = false
            }
        }
        tasksRepository.observeTasks().switchMap { filterTasks(it) }
    }
}

android-clean-architecture-boilerplate:

class GetBufferProjects @Inject constructor(
    private val bufferProjectsRepository: BufferProjectsRepository
) : SingleUseCase<List<BufferProject>, Void?>() {

    public override fun buildUseCaseObservable(params: Void?): Single<List<BufferProject>> {
        return bufferProjectsRepository.getBufferProjects()
    }
}

The code snippets show different approaches to handling data and business logic, with architecture-samples using a ViewModel and android-clean-architecture-boilerplate using a UseCase pattern.

Pros of android-mvvm-architecture

• Simpler architecture, easier for beginners to understand and implement
• Includes more comprehensive examples of common Android app features
• Better documentation and explanations of architectural decisions

Cons of android-mvvm-architecture

• Less emphasis on clean architecture principles
• May not scale as well for larger, more complex applications
• Fewer abstraction layers, potentially leading to tighter coupling

Code Comparison

android-mvvm-architecture:

class MainViewModel @Inject constructor(
    private val userRepository: UserRepository
) : ViewModel() {
    private val _user = MutableLiveData<User>()
    val user: LiveData<User> = _user
}

android-clean-architecture-boilerplate:

class GetUser @Inject constructor(
    private val userRepository: UserRepository
) : UseCase<GetUser.Params, User>() {
    override suspend fun run(params: Params) = userRepository.getUser(params.userId)
    data class Params(val userId: String)
}

The android-mvvm-architecture example shows a simpler ViewModel implementation, while the android-clean-architecture-boilerplate demonstrates a more abstracted UseCase approach, adhering to clean architecture principles.

Both repositories offer valuable insights into Android app architecture, with android-mvvm-architecture being more accessible for beginners and android-clean-architecture-boilerplate providing a more scalable, clean architecture approach for complex applications.

Pros of android-best-practices

• Comprehensive guide covering various aspects of Android development
• Regularly updated with community contributions
• Includes best practices for both development and project management

Cons of android-best-practices

• Lacks a concrete implementation or boilerplate code
• May require more effort to implement in a new project
• Some practices might be opinionated or not suitable for all projects

Code comparison

android-clean-architecture-boilerplate:

class GetBufferoos @Inject constructor(
    private val bufferooRepository: BufferooRepository,
    postExecutionThread: PostExecutionThread
) : UseCase<List<Bufferoo>, Void?>(postExecutionThread) {

    public override fun buildUseCaseObservable(params: Void?): Observable<List<Bufferoo>> {
        return bufferooRepository.getBufferoos()
    }
}

android-best-practices:

// No direct code implementation, but provides guidelines like:
class MyViewModel : ViewModel() {
    private val _uiState = MutableStateFlow(UiState())
    val uiState: StateFlow<UiState> = _uiState.asStateFlow()

    fun loadData() {
        viewModelScope.launch {
            // Load data and update _uiState
        }
    }
}

The android-clean-architecture-boilerplate provides a concrete implementation of clean architecture, while android-best-practices offers guidelines and best practices without specific code implementations. The choice between them depends on whether you need a ready-to-use boilerplate or prefer a set of guidelines to implement in your own way.