Is AsyncTask really conceptually flawed or am I just missing something?

Question

How about something like this:

class MyActivity extends Activity {
    Worker mWorker;

    static class Worker extends AsyncTask<URL, Integer, Long> {
        MyActivity mActivity;

        Worker(MyActivity activity) {
            mActivity = activity;
        }

        @Override
        protected Long doInBackground(URL... urls) {
            int count = urls.length;
            long totalSize = 0;
            for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
                totalSize += Downloader.downloadFile(urls[i]);
                publishProgress((int) ((i / (float) count) * 100));
            }
            return totalSize;
        }

        @Override
        protected void onProgressUpdate(Integer... progress) {
            if (mActivity != null) {
                mActivity.setProgressPercent(progress[0]);
            }
        }

        @Override
        protected void onPostExecute(Long result) {
            if (mActivity != null) {
                mActivity.showDialog("Downloaded " + result + " bytes");
            }
        }
    }

    @Override
    protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);

        mWorker = (Worker)getLastNonConfigurationInstance();
        if (mWorker != null) {
            mWorker.mActivity = this;
        }

        ...
    }

    @Override
    public Object onRetainNonConfigurationInstance() {
        return mWorker;
    }

    @Override
    protected void onDestroy() {
        super.onDestroy();
        if (mWorker != null) {
            mWorker.mActivity = null;
        }
    }

    void startWork() {
        mWorker = new Worker(this);
        mWorker.execute(...);
    }
}

The reason is obvious: what if the activity gets destroyed which triggered the task?

Manually disassociate the activity from the AsyncTask in onDestroy(). Manually re-associate the new activity to the AsyncTask in onCreate(). This requires either a static inner class or a standard Java class, plus perhaps 10 lines of code.

It looks like AsyncTask is a bit more than just conceptually flawed. It is also unusable by compatibility issues. The Android docs read:

When first introduced, AsyncTasks were executed serially on a single background thread. Starting with DONUT, this was changed to a pool of threads allowing multiple tasks to operate in parallel. Starting HONEYCOMB, tasks are back to being executed on a single thread to avoid common application errors caused by parallel execution. If you truly want parallel execution, you can use the executeOnExecutor(Executor, Params...) version of this method with THREAD_POOL_EXECUTOR; however, see commentary there for warnings on its use.

Both executeOnExecutor() and THREAD_POOL_EXECUTOR are Added in API level 11 (Android 3.0.x, HONEYCOMB).

This means that if you create two AsyncTasks to download two files, the 2nd download will not start until the first one finishes. If you chat via two servers, and the first server is down, you will not connect to the second one before the connection to the first one times out. (Unless you use the new API11 features, of course, but this will make your code incompatible with 2.x).

And if you want to target both 2.x and 3.0+, the stuff becomes really tricky.

In addition, the docs say:

Caution: Another problem you might encounter when using a worker thread is unexpected restarts in your activity due to a runtime configuration change (such as when the user changes the screen orientation), which may destroy your worker thread. To see how you can persist your task during one of these restarts and how to properly cancel the task when the activity is destroyed, see the source code for the Shelves sample application.

Probably we all, including Google, are misusing AsyncTask from the MVC point of view.

An Activity is a Controller, and the controller should not start operations that may outlive the View. That is, AsyncTasks should be used from Model, from a class that is not bound to the Activity life cycle -- remember that Activities are destroyed on rotation. (As to the View, you don't usually program classes derived from e.g. android.widget.Button, but you can. Usually, the only thing you do about the View is the xml.)

In other words, it is wrong to place AsyncTask derivatives in the methods of Activities. OTOH, if we must not use AsyncTasks in Activities, AsyncTask loses its attractiveness: it used to be advertised as a quick and easy fix.

I'm not sure it's true that you risk a memory leak with a reference to a context from an AsyncTask.

The usual way of implementing them is to create a new AsyncTask instance within the scope of one of the Activity's methods. So if the activity is destroyed, then once the AsyncTask completes won't it be unreachable and then eligible for garbage collection? So the reference to the activity won't matter because the AsyncTask itself won't hang around.