DependencyObjects can have SetValue() available and most (if not all) of WPF's stock UIElement derived controls contain DependencyObject properties than can be set via SetValue. Sometimes it is practical to do code-behind in a WPF application. Below produces similar result. But which one is better?
<TextBlock x:Name="myTextBlock" Loaded="myTextBlock_Loaded"/>
And setting the Text property can be done in two ways.
myTextBlock.Text = "foo";
OR
myTextBlock.SetValue(TextBlock.TextProperty, "foo");
Maybe the difference is trivial but I'm curious whether there is an advantage of using the one over the other.
There is a slight performance boost* in the second, as the implementation of TextBlock.Text set is actually return this.SetValue(TextBlock.TextProperty, value);.
However it should be noted that it is possible to get the second implementation wrong, for example you could end up typing
myTextBlock.SetValue(Grid.ColumnProperty, "foo");
Which would compile, but likely not run (or at least not give the expected result).
Further, the former will give you type-safety that the later would not give.
*"This performance boost" should however be JITed away.
Dependency properties with actual properties are essentially conveniences to get or set those properties through code. All dependency properties for all dependency objects are backed by a "dictionary" of key/values. Those values are accessed through the GetValue() and SetValue() methods.
What is "better" all depends on how you intend to use the properties. All builtin controls define properties to make it easier to initialize the objects through code. It would be far messier if you tried the same using the Get/Set methods.
But don't look at it in terms of what is "better," you'll get nowhere thinking in that way. Both are necessary. The dependency properties are how you get/set observable properties of dependency objects. Making those properties accessible with corresponding properties makes using your code easier.
If you don't need to access these dependency properties through code, then I suppose you could argue that the properties are not needed, but then nobody would want to use it.
Related
Pretty much it summarizes my problem here:
Double check - does it ever make sense to have internal viewmodel class?
I have controls.DLL and I'd like to keep this custom control bindings and viewmodel's internal. However, this doesn't seem to be possible.
How do you get around that? The only way I see it - don't use bindings..
Why do you have a view model for a custom control? I assume you're assigning the view model object to the DataContext property, but this is almost always a mistake: the DataContext should be available to consumers to use and abuse as they please. Stated another way, what happens if a consumer of your custom control explicitly sets the DataContext? It sounds like your control will stop working and throw a bunch of xaml binding errors.
A custom control is inherently lookless. There is no model or view model, just a view. That view is the .cs file. You supply a default look via your themes/generic.xaml file, but consumers should be able to supply their own template. If you're tying them to a view model, they also need to know how to create a view model instance and all of its dependencies. You've just created highly coupled code. DI containers can loosen the coupling, but that just downgrades the relationship between classes from "coupled" to "related". I say, why do consumers even need to know that information?
A better approach is to provide all of the properties for your control as dependency properties. Then your generic.xaml can provide a control template that uses the more efficient TemplateBinding to bind properties/objects to your control. If you need to populate these dependency properties from a business object, expose another dependency property of type IBusinessObject and set the derived values in that object's PropertyMetaData changed handler. If your IBusinessObject type contains a property which is yet another class which implements INotifyPropertyChanged, you should probably (1) rethink your object graph or (2) create a Bnding object in code using the subclass.
I think following all of the above advice will eliminate the problem about which you're concerned plus the other problems as well. Leave the view models to the UserControls. And yes, this is why custom controls are a MASSIVE headache. Doing them right is fairly involved.
Try protected internal. I suppose this should work. Although I don't think its good idea to have the ViewModel not public at all, cause one of the purposes of it is to be able to define several Views against the same ViewModel, which may come from different assemblies.
Advance apologies for the event-style explanation; there's a lot of factors that I feel all play a role of their own. WPF is not my native framework of choice, and it probably shows. :)
Old situation: I had a window with several controls. Depending on their selections, I used multibindings and a converter to determine whether certain controls needed to be shown that inform the user about the implications of their changes before they'd eventually confirm them by OK (or simply dismissed by using Cancel). This worked perfectly.
Problem: Too many controls as time went by, too much clutter.
Solution: Put stuff in different Pages so it becomes easier to browse for the user. In order to have changes-to-be persist as a user arbitrarily browses between the pages, I create these dynamically and put them in a cache (Dictionary<string, BasePage>, see below), from which they will be pulled as the user chooses them.
Consequence: I need to decouple the bindings to the notification controls as the different options are now on different pages.
Solution? I put a BasePage class in that exposes certain abstract read-only properties that define the various aspects that the window needs to know about in order to do its notifications. For example, a bool requiresReboot property defines whether the current state of things on that page requires a reboot to take (full) effect. A specific page implements the property based on its controls.
Problem: I do not know how to keep create a proper binding that properly gets updated as the pages are changed. I tried giving my notification controls a binding to the Dictionary<string, BasePage> with a converter that checks all pages and the relevant property.
Questions:
1) How do I create a proper property for this purpose? I presume I need a DependancyProperty as I did a fair bit of reading on MSDN, but I can't figure out how this fits together.
2) How do I make a link between my custom property so that it allows (multiple) control(s) on a page to change that property? Do I use INotifyPropertyChanged somehow? My old example bound against several CheckBox.IsChecked properties in XAML. I am trying to avoid putting tons of events (OnChange, etc) on the controls as the original code did not need it and I have been told it makes for a messy solution for as far WPF is concerned.
3) Finally, I suspect I may need to change my Dictionary<string, BasePage> class to a custom implementation that implements some sort of INotifyPropertyChanged but for Collections? Observable Collection is the term I am looking for, I believe.
I hope someone is able to bridge the gap in my understanding of WPF (property) internals; I would very much appreciate it. A basic sample would be even better, but if it is too complicated, just a nudge in the right direction will do. Thank you. :)
It's been a while since I solved this, and while I cannot remember the exact cause of the problems, there were a few different issues that made up the bulk of the trouble I ran into.
I ended up making the Property in question a non-abstract DependencyProperty in the base class; it was the only way in which I could properly delegate the change notifications to the interface. Derived classes simply ended up binding it to their controls (with a proper Converter in the case extra logic was necessitated).
As Dictionary<string, BasePage> does not support any sort of change notification, I made an extra collection of ObservableCollection<BasePage> which I used for binding purposes.
However, such a collection does not propagate a change event when items inside of it has a property changed. Since this situation required that, and I was binding to the collection itself in the context of a property that does not have a Master<->Detail relationship like a DataGrid (which basically add their own OnPropertyChanged handlers to the binded object), I ended up subclassing a VeryObservableCollecton<>. This one listens to its own items, and throws a proper change event (I think it was an OnPropertyChanged from the INotifyPropertyChanged interface) so that the binding (or in this case a multi-binding) would refresh properly and allow my interface to update.
It is hardly the prettiest code, and it feels over-engineered, but at least it allows me to properly bind the UI to the data in this manner.
I'm having trouble deciding what to think about this piece of code:
public SolidColorBrush Brush
{
get { return IsValid ? _validItemBrush : _invalidItemBrush; }
}
It is part of a view model in my current project and as you can imagine, the Brush will be bound to some text elements in the UI, to indicate (in-)validity of other pieces of data, in an otherwise fairly simple and straightforward dialog.
The proponents of this piece of code say that since we're using WPF, we might as well allow for some simple WPF specific constructs in the view model.
The opponents say that this violates Separation of Concerns, as it clearly dictates style which should be taken care of solely by the view.
Please share your arguments, and if you're not happy with the code above, please share your ideas around alternative solutions. (I'm particularly interested in what you have to say about using DataTemplates).
Is it possible that there is one solution that could be considered best practice?
Personally, I would have the two brushes be defined in XAML, and have the controls that use them switch brushes (in xaml) based on the IsValid property. This could be done very easily with DataTriggers, or even a single IValueConverter - the converter could take 2 brushes and a boolean and swap between them fairly easily.
This keeps the business logic presentation-neutral - a "Brush" is very specific to a specific form of presentation, and a pure View choice. Hard-coding this into the ViewModel violates the single responsibility principle as well as is not a clean separation of concerns.
I would very much keep this in the View, and switch based on the IsValid (bound) property that is ViewModel specific.
While there are circumstances where I might use WPF constructs in the view model, this isn't one of them. Here's why:
It's harder to change. If you define brushes as resources and use them in styles, changing your application's color scheme can simply be a matter of loading a different resource dictionary. If you hard-code color values in your view models, you have a lot of different things to change if it turns out your end users need different colors.
It's harder to test. If you want to write a unit test that checks to see if a property is returning the right brush, you have to create a brush in your unit test and compare the values of the two, since it's a reference type.
In many, maybe even most cases, it doesn't make the code simpler or easier to maintain. You're pretty likely to already be using a style (assuming that you are conversant with styles), since they make just about everything in WPF easier. Binding IsValid to brush colors is just a matter of adding a DataTrigger to a style. Which is where anyone maintaining this code would expect to find it.
There are certainly times when I do use WPF constructs in the view model - for instance, long ago stopped wondering if it was problem if a view model exposed a property of type Visibility. Note that none of the above concerns apply to that case.
In cases like yours where it's purely aesthetic I use Triggers or the Visual State Manager to change colors.
Sometimes I do use colors in my ViewModels, but only if its part of my software spec (e.g., the color of the chart displaying a patient's CO2 depends on localization). In that case, I use a Color struct bound property, allowing the View to use the Color for a SolidColorBrush, a GradientStop, or whatever it wants. I initially used a string in #AARRGGBB format to completely remove the WPF dependency but my more seasoned co-workers didn't like that.
I'm looking for a SL4 equivalent to .NET 4's SetCurrentValue API, which would appear to be exactly what I need for my scenario.
In short, I'm writing an attached behavior that updates the value of a given property at appropriate times. However, I don't want it to overwrite any bindings that are set on that dependency property. I merely want to push that value to the property (and therefore have any bindings refresh based on that value).
From what I can tell, there's no easy way to do this yet in SL4.
Thanks
Silverlight does not provide direct access to this level of dependency value. However its this level of value that Animations in storyboards set when they manipulate a property.
Hence a Storyboard with a 0 length duration containing a single DiscreteObjectKeyFrame might achieve your desired result.
I've managed to simulate what I'm after by detecting bindings and injecting a surrogate object between the source and target. I can then manipulate the surrogate and have both sides of the original binding refresh.
It's ugly and more work than I'd like, but it seems to work.
Kent
I am having a hard time figuring out good reasons for the dependency property. Why the System.Controls.TextBox "Text" property a dependency property and not a normal property? What benefits does it serve being a dependency property?
One of the things I am trying to accomplish is to add a ValidationRules property to my UserControl which will contain other validation rules. Like here:
<customControls:RequiredTextBox.ValidationRules>
<validators:NotNullOrEmptyValidationRule ErrorMessage="FirstName cannot be null or empty"/>
</customControls:RequiredTextBox.ValidationRules>
The problem is that I am not sure if ValidationRules property should be DependencyProperty or just a normal property.
The above code gives the following error:
{"Cannot add element to 'ValidationRules'; the property value is null. Error at object 'LearningWPF.ValidationRules.NotNullOrEmptyValidationRule' in markup file 'LearningWPF;component/addcustomerwindow.xaml' Line 35 Position 66."}
Here is the ValidationRules property:
public static readonly DependencyProperty ValidationRulesProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register("ValidationRules",
typeof (Collection<ValidationRule>), typeof (RequiredTextBox),
new FrameworkPropertyMetadata(null));
public Collection<ValidationRule> ValidationRules
{
get { return (Collection<ValidationRule>)GetValue(ValidationRulesProperty); }
set { SetValue(ValidationRulesProperty, value); }
}
The benefits are primarily two fold:
Firstly a dependency property is only created when it is used, this means the TextBox class can be very efficient, with a low memory footprint since it has a minimal number of real properties taking up space on the heap. This is especially important in WPF where all controls are just collections of more and more specific types. If each of those inner types declared tens of properties to define behaviour and look then a high level control like a button would end up having the size of a class with something in the ballpark of a hundred properties.
Secondly dependency properties can be tied to an object other than the type that they are created for. This allows the case where a control can set a Grid.Column property, which the Grid control can read and use for layout. This means that we don't hundreds of decorator classes supplying tiny pieces of functionality required by other controls. This means that xmal is far more intuitive and readable.
Edited to address the example in your revised question:
While your validation property won't gain much benefit from being a dependency property (basically out of the reasons in all the answers so far I can only really see my comment of memory footprint coming in to play), and it certainly isn't advantageous as it is in the case of the Text property of a text box where you may want to bind it, or change it based on some other input, I would still implement it as a dependency property. My reasoning for this is simple; you don't gain much, but it also doesn't cost you anything - I have never wished I had used a basic property in a custom control whereas when I first started writing them I was constantly upgrading my basic properties to dependencies because I wanted some extra functionality.
Simply put, while the dependency property is more complex to define that a normal property I would still use it as the de facto standard for WPF controls unless there was some good reason to do otherwise. In much the same way as a property is the standard for classes, even though a field is easier to implement.
The primary benefits I would say are:
First-class data binding support.
Clean Attached Property semantics
Property values which "depend".
That last point is key
Before Dependency Properties, having a value have a local value, an animatable value, an overridable value, a styleable value, a templatable value would require the declaration of multiple Properties/Fields/Dictionary entries, as well as complex state+precedence management.
Dependency Properties give you all these features out of the box, while declaring just ONE property.
That being said, in your case, you may not want to declare your ValidationRules as a DependencyProperty if you won't need to take advantage of these features.
If you do, you'll want to have different handling for your collections (non-empty collections for example). In this particular example, I would use Reflector and see how the .NET TextBox implements their validation collections, and see if you can reuse or copy the code.
There's no point re-inventing the wheel unless you're certain your wheel will be better. My personal experience is that my reinvented wheels tend to be missing things ;).
As Martin Harris already pointed out, DependencyProperties can limit the memory footprint by throwing the property values into a dictionary, however this can (and I believe was?) done by MSFT before the advent of DependencyProperties.
Martin also mentions Attached Properties, but those were also available (at least in designer) before the advent of DependencyProperties. The Attached Property implementation using DependencyProperties is much cleaner.
Dependency Properties are required if you want to use binding to populate the value of a property. If it was just a normal property, you wouldn't be able to bind the Text property to a property of your View Model object, for example.