Question

We all know how we can use intent-filters in our AndroidManifest.xml to declare capabilities of activities such as search, push, and so on. I currently use such an intent-filter to register a custom URL scheme in the following manner:

<activity android:name="NameOfActivity" >
    <intent-filter >
        <action android:name="android.intent.action.VIEW" />
        <category android:name="android.intent.category.DEFAULT" />
        <category android:name="android.intent.category.BROWABLE" />
        <data
            android:host=""
            android:scheme="customscheme" />
    </intent-filter>
</activity>

This all worked very well until I decided to transform all my activities into fragments, as I needed to display the user interface in a different manner on tables. Now, on devices that are declared as large or greater, instead of switching between activities I have one activity that removes and adds new fragments as requested. This choice was taken as the left-hand side of the screen allways displays the same content, so instead of adding this content ito all activities I instead change the fragments.

The problem here is that while the intent-filter launches the correct activity on the phone, this activity should never be launched on a tablet. Instead, I would like to handle this URL in the fragment. As of now, I see no way of fixing this. One thought was to add the intent-filter programmatically, but after some research i cannot figure out if this is possible or not. Another thought was to somehow add the intent-filter on the fragment, but this would not work as a fragment cannot launch without an activity hosting it.

In short:
On a phone, I need one activity to handle the intent-filter, but on a tablet I need another activity to handle the intent-filter.

Is there any way of accomplishing this?

Answer 1

After one month, I have yet to find a solution to this. As of know, the activity is launched on top of everything else. It breaks the whole flow, and is a quite bad workaround, but at least it works. Excluding the feature was a no-go, and thus this was the only solution. I would be really happy to see a better solution to this, but as of know it seems that it simply is not possible.