I'm currently facing one of the most discussed problems in MVVM: I have a complex Model in my WPF application and I'm not sure how I should display its data to the View.
According to many answers here on StackOverflow and also to this article there are two ways:
to wrap the Model inside the ViewModel by adding a property in the ViewModel for each property in the Model
to expose the Model directly to the view without replicating the properties.
What I understood so far is that the first approach is better from a theoretical point of view, while the second one is a quick shortcut that should be avoided.
In the same article I previously linked, the author writes the following:
In reviewing the sample application from the Caliburn framework, they implement the VM using option 2.
I took a look at the Caliburn.Micro documentation and unfortunately it just uses a simple ViewModel without a real Model, so I don't know how to verify this statement.
Is the author right? Since I'm using Caliburn.Micro should I use the second approach instead of the first one in order to be more "compliant" with the framework implementation?
Since I'm using Caliburn.Micro should I use the second approach instead of the first one in order to be more "compliant" with the framework implementation?
No. Caliburn.Micro is just an MVVM library. How you implement the actual MVVM pattern is entirely up to you.
I agree with #Marek Dzikiewicz that you should wrap the model in a view model class that may implement the INotifyPropertyChanged interface and provide any other UI specific functionality. This code doesn't belong to a business object. You could refer to my answer here for more information:
Reuse the same models in ASP.NET MVC and WPF MVVM
Obviously if the model class is indeed a UI specific class that is not used in any other application and doesn't contain any business logic that is used on the server side, you could modify this class and bind to it directly. But then it is kind of a (sub) view model after all.
Usually it is better to expose view models because that allows you to add additional properties to control the way the data is displayed (for example formatting or concatenating data). However, if you don't need that, there is nothing wrong in exposing the model classes directly.
Related
I thought we should have no reference from View to ViewModel in MVVM Pattern. but just saw an MVVM Sample from code.msdn.microsoft in which ViewModel implements new Window and shows it;
By using MVVM-Light toolkit you use Messenger to Call or Open new Window and Still keep Separate the View and ViewModel form each other. Is it right to reference the View in ViewModel? Or it is wrong;
Do you suggest to call Views Directly from ViewModel for large(or medium) projects?
http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsdesktop/Easy-MVVM-Examples-fb8c409f
YAGNI.
Level of effort and complexity.
MVVM is just a pattern. A pattern you don't have to follow. Any little tool I write for my own use just uses a model, a viewmodel, and a view. The viewmodel exposes all properties I need for the view by INotifyPropertyChanged. The data is moved back and forth from viewmodel to model manually using ViewModel.FromModel(model) syntax. I don't bind to my models. I only use the model when saving/loading data; I don't hang onto it. My views are generated using dataTemplates and dataTemplateSelectors. If I have a property that should change the layout I expose that on the viewmodel and use a selector. Otherwise, I have a datatemplate for every viewmodel object. And it just works.
I call this a form of MVVM, even though it doesn't any toolkit or the exact MVVM pattern that Microsoft describes.
I would personally implement a service to drive commands from the viewmodel to generate new views and hookup the viewmodel. But that's because I have MVC experience, and I think generating views is easier to do using the MVC pattern, whereas desktop views work better using the MVVM pattern.
All my views are composed with contentControls. Setting the content is setting the viewmodel.
So I use a hybrid.
If your software isn't so complex to need the complete Microsoft endorsed MVVM pattern, why create the overhead code IMO. YAGNI.
IMO, having a strong reference from the ViewModel to the View has 2 problems:
It breaks the testability of your ViewModel code. This means you won't be able to Unit Test your code so easily, and if you do you'll have to account for Dispatcher issues and the like.
It makes your ViewModels dependent on WPF assemblies and types. This means you won't be able to literally copy and paste your ViewModels into other applications or platforms such as Xamarin.Android or the like
If none of these are important to you, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't. Not doing so creates additional overhead in your code, by having to implement WindowManagers and whatnot.
I am working on a WPF application using MVVM pattern. I need to do data validation(using Data Annotations) for my data entry screens.
But the tricky part to write a common piece of code is rather than using simple property I need to use properties with are calling GetValue and SetValue method. But my entities are being generated by entity framework using templates and modifying template to achieve this things seems very difficult.
I am using this technique to validate my data
http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/tomershamam/archive/2010/10/28/wpf-data-validation-using-net-data-annotations-part-ii.aspx
http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/tomershamam/archive/2010/10/11/notifyingobject-for-wpf-amp-silverlight.aspx
If there is better and authentic way to validate the entity data, i'll be more than happy to change my approach or if I need to change the template then please point me to some great reference.
Firstly. Really bad idea to do this, not because it is hard, but due to that you need to inherit DependencyObject. DependencyObject is an STA Threaded class. You won't be able to use a worker thread to instantiate your objects, which means you can't use a worker thread to use Entity Framework.
Now, I suggest you use the MVVM pattern with WPF. You should have a View bind to a ViewModel, which then binds to your Entity Framework POCO objects.
You can try IValidateObject for you validation https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13917890/mvc4-custom-validation-via-ivalidateobject-validate-method-not-working
I personally however prefer the FluentValidation library.
While adding extra functionality to the main view I have in my application, I've realized that the amount of code will soon become a problem (currently around 600 lines of code in my viewmodel and I still have plenty to add).
I've been looking around for articles on how to split/design your view into smaller components, but I haven't found a satisfying solution. One person suggested using child viewmodels but that presented with other problems (dependency between the viewmodels).
I've thought of using user controls, but there is nothing on the View that I use on other Views so it kind of defeats the purpose of user controls.
What is a correct approach in this situation?
Thanks,
Adrian
If you want to split a view into component parts, then you need to do view composition. If you are building an MVVM app, then you should really be using an MVVM framework. Something like Caliburn.Micro makes view composition incredibly easy.
There doesn't necessarily have to be dependencies between the view models, they should only know about what they need in order to produce their view. This could be a subset of the business object that the parent view model contains. As the parent view model will have references to all of the child view models, it can pass the relevant parts of the business object to them at the point of their construction.
I would agree with using Caliburn Micro.
However, to play devil's advocate you could split out your ViewModel File into separate files (same class name) and use the partial keyword before the class keyword. Its generally tidier and one step-away (non-breaking precursor) from breaking-up into separate classes.
I also agree Caliburn.Micro is a good solution for splitting your application in smaller components.
In Caliburn.Micro the communication between viewmodels is based on the Event aggregator pattern.
This makes a loose coupling between viewmodels
Splitting up is not ideal.
It looks as if the Caliburn toolkit focuses on events, whereas my application largely relies on ICommand implementations.
To me, the first encounter with Caliburn.Micro has been unsatisfactory.
The setup appeared to be tailored to VS2010 - which sounded promissing to me - because I do have VS2010 pro. But I got lost in the setup's of Silverlight.
Compared to toolkits like Prism it lacks the ease of an start.
It just takes to much time to switch now.
I use my own MVVM paradigm, it is less abstract than the Caliburn, it integrates multilanguage support everywhere, and it just faces one acceptable problem of some sources getting too big because of the nature of the Binding/DataContext paradigm.
For this problem I accept that "partial class" is a solution - even though I know there is a more elegant solution available.
In the heat of my work, I cannot change to another toolkit.
So I gently wait for Microsoft to allow for more flexibility around that Binding/DataContext paradigm.
It may be the case that Caliburn shows more intelligence allocating a viewmodel to some item. Does it ? (I think it does.)
What might be another option is to define a custom (xaml useable) object that triggers a custom allocator which control is to be allocated to which viewmodel. How about that ?
The question is stated in the subject: are the advantages of Model-View-ViewModel (MVVM) pattern worth the overhead?
In many cases, implementing the view model involves quite significant overhead of duplicating the Model properties and sometimes synchronization between Model and ViewModel data members. For example, currently in Silverlight 4 & WCF RIA, View Models are not generated (if the developer follows the MVVM pattern, it is up to him to create the view models, often duplicating the corresponding Model's properties at ViewModel, that do nothing significant but refer to Model as the storage).
Why not extending the Model class, providing additional properties to make it easy to be consumed by the View instead?
Why not extending the Model class, providing additional properties to make it easy to be consumed by the View instead?
Effectively that is what the PresentationModel is for. Which MVVM is strongly based on. The difference is that the ViewModel is the model for the view and not the model for the data. So you are concerned around more how the view behaves with the data.
If you have a simple UI that all it does is present the model then I would suggest expose the Model on a property of the ViewModel and bind to that. Make sure though the model does implement INotifyPropertyChanged etc.
The power of the ViewModel is when you have things to do in response to a user action. The ViewModel can then support Commands, calling out to services and validation and thus leaving the Model as a data container
Why not extending the Model class, providing additional properties to make it easy to be consumed by the View instead?
In the simple cases, this is all the ViewModel is doing - wrapping up the Model so that its extended in a way that's consumable by the View. If your Model can be bound directly, you're welcome to do so.
That being said, there is more to the ViewModel layer than just wrapping the model - this is also where the application specific logic - ie: the application's plumbing, will occur. Something has to make the requests from the Model classes correctly and compose together the logic.
If you are concerned about extra work, you can always create a ViewModelBase (INotifyPropertyChanged , Errors/Validation, generic stuff) to be inherited by your ViewModel, it will minimize things that you think may cost you time to replicate. And also, Silverlight/Wpf provides us with binding which greatly reduces our coding, besides the fact that XAML also does that by providing functionalities through markup. Besides that you can further the design by using screens, controllers, etc.
For me, I do not see any "overhead" with regards to using MVVM; if there were, it'd be worth it. It properly deals with the Separation of Concerns. It provides a good platform for development especially in teams where people may take care of different aspects of the application without affecting other team members codes (especially between developers and designers).
Hope this helps
Benefits of MVVM
Reduced complexity.
Isolation of Designing and Development.
Dependency injection.
Major advantage is when you have a Well MVVM structured Windows Phone application and want to develop same for Windows Metro Desktop, Only thing u want to concentarte on design as the same view model can be used as it is.
Hope it helps.
i know some Mvvm Frameworks that introduced in this thread
please describe or give me link for that what are them useful for?
not information about MVVM about MVVM Framework.
thanks :)
i want to know :
What Is MVVM Framework?
I think your question is not really precise. As far as I understand, you ask for the features of each framework?!
You can find detailed information here and here. However, at least one of these links has already been given in the thread you mentioned...
EDIT:
Basically, an MVVM framework is a collection of classes which are commonly used in applications utilising the MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel) pattern. This may include messaging systems to communicate between independent parts of a software, dependency injection techniques, base classes for ViewModels, project/class templates, validation mechanisms, commonly used commands, techniques for displaying dialog boxes, and so on...
To completely understand such a framework, you will have to understand the MVVM pattern first. Because only then (or even only after you did your first MVVM project) you will have an understanding of the problems and/or challenges of this pattern.
To use Mvvm framework just simply follow below steps:
You have a model and a view-model with the same name.
View-models are not supposed to be wrappers around models. The job of a view-model is to broker requests for external services such as the loading and saving of data. The data itself, as well as validation and most of the business logic, should be in the models.
I can’t emphasize this enough. Whenever you create a view-model that wraps a model by delegation you introduce a huge hole in your API. Specially, anything with a direct reference to the model can change a property in such a way that the view-model and thus the UI are never notified. Likewise, any changes to calculated fields in the model won’t be propagated back to the view-model.
You have a view and a view-model with the same name.
Ideally view-models are agnostic to the screens they are used by. This is especially true in a WPF application where multiple windows may be sharing the same instance of a view-model.
For smaller applications such you may only need a single view-model for the whole application. For larger applications you may need one for the main functionality and one for each secondary aspect such as configuration management.
You have no code behind.
In absolute terms code behind is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is merely a place to put logic that is specific to a single view or control. So when I see a view with no code-behind at all I immediately check for the following mistakes:
Does the view-model touch specific controls by name?
Is the view-model being given access to controls via a command parameter?
Is EventToCommand or another leaky behavior being used in place of simple event handler?
EventToCommand from MVVM Light is especially bad because it will prevent controls from being garbage collected after they are removed from the screen.
View-models are listening to property changed notifications
If a model has a longer life-span then the view-model that listens to its events then you probably have a memory leak. Unlike views which have an unloaded event, view-models don’t have a good story for life-cycle management. So if they attach an event to a model that may out-last them then the view-model will be leaked.