I am pretty new to WPF and right now I am trying to get used to the MVVM pattern. Right now I have a simple application in which I have a collection of ViewModels that I display in a grid. When I doubleclick on the row in the grid I want to show a details View of the ViewModel.
The problem I am having right now is that I already have a fully instanced ViewModel, but I can't seem to pass it into the view. When I try to load that View it turns up empty. I already found out that this is due to the fact that when a View gets loaded it creates it's own instance of the backing ViewModel. So obviously I need to get around this behaviour and somehow pass the instanced ViewModel into the View when it is created. I could use a constructor in the View that takes a ViewModel and set the datasource in there. However, taking this approach but would mean that I need to construct the View in the ViewModel and thus making the ViewModel aware of the View. This I something I would like to avoid since I am trying to uphold the MVVM pattern.
So what should I do in this case? Should I just break the MVVM pattern or are there some nice and clean sollutions for this that fit in the MVVM pattern?
There are many ways of passing a view model to a view, as you call it, or setting a view model as the DataContext of either a Window or UserControl, as others may call it. The simplest is just this:
In a view constructor:
public partial class SomeView
{
InitializeComponent();
DataContext = new SomeViewModel();
}
A more MVVM way might be to define DataTemplates in App.xaml for each view model that defines which view each will use:
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type YourViewModelsPrefix:YourViewModel">
<YourViewsPrefix:YourView />
</DataTemplate>
...
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type YourViewModelsPrefix:AnotherViewModel">
<YourViewsPrefix:AnotherView />
</DataTemplate>
Now whenever the Framework comes across an instance of these view model classes, it will render the associated view. You can display them by having a property of the type of your view model using a ContentControl like this:
<ContentControl Content="{Binding YourViewModelProperty}" />
Or even in a collection like this:
<ListBox ItemsSource="{Binding YourViewModelCollectionProperty}" />
"Should I just break the MVVM pattern?"
Well, please consider to learn more about the pattern, to know what it is to "break it". The main purpose of this pattern is to keep responsability clear, thus to obtain testable and maintainable code. There are a lot of ressource for that as show in this question:
MVVM: Tutorial from start to finish?
Anyway to be more specific about your question, what you are looking for is how to set the DataContext.
"somehow pass the instanced ViewModel into the View when it is created"
Yes, you get it, if you assign the dataContext with a viewModel in the constructor of your view, it could work but it it is acceptable only if the viewModel has the responsability to create the view (which could be acceptable in really few situation). You could even write something like that to directly set DataContext from outside your view:
var l_window = new MyView { DataContext = new MyViewModel() };
l_window.Show();
Of course the main drawback is that this code is not testable. If you would like to test it you should use a mockable service to manage the view creation.
A more common solution is to inject the dataContext with an IOC container (like prism). You create all required ViewModel when the software started and you store them in this IOC container. Then, when the view is created, you ask this container to get you an instance of your viewModel.
An example could be: export your viewModel in PRISM:
[Export]
public class MyViewModel {...}
And then Import it in your view:
[Import]
private MyViewModel ViewModel
{
set { this.DataContext = value; }
get { return this.DataContext as MyViewModel; }
}
Hope it helps.
I agree with #Sheridan's answer and would only like to add another way to instantiate a view with a view model: you could use the Factory Pattern, maybe like this:
public class ViewFactory
{
public UIElement Create(object context)
{
// Create the view model
// You can pass in various information by parameters
// as I do with context (Constructor Injection)
var viewModel = new ViewModel(context);
// Create the view and set the view model as data context
var view = new View { DataContext = viewModel };
return view;
}
}
You can call this factory from within a method of your view model and then assign it to e.g. a property that is data bound to the UI. This allows for a bit more flexibility - but #Sheridan's solution is also fine.
Related
Hi guys I am very new to WPF. I have two datacontexts in two different classes which are being binded by the elements in the View producing datatriggers, and one or the other wouldn't work as they cannot bind both datacontexts together. How do I bind xaml from two different classes using datacontext? Is there any alternative way could make it easier?
Class A
public Window1()
{
InitializeComponent();
Appointments = new Appointments();
DataContext = Appointments;
}
Class B
private void FilterAppointments()
{
this.DataContext = this;
...
Firstly, you should never use DataContext = this; in any UserControl in a serious WPF Application. Secondly, you should look up the MVVM design pattern, which provides the idea of a view model for each view. Your Window or UserControl are the 'Views' and your view models are simply classes that contain all of the data properties that you need to display in your view.
Therefore, you should declare a view model class (that implements the INotifyPropertyChanged interface) and put whatever you wanted to data bind into that. Finally, you should set that object as the DataContext property value. In that way, you'll have access to all the data that you need.
Looking again at your question, it just occurred to me that you may have set the DataContext to this so that you could use properties that you declared in your Window or UserControl. If this is the case, then you should not set the DataContext to this, instead using a RelativeSource Binding to access the properties. That would free up the actual DataContext to be set however you like. Try this Binding within the Window or UserControl:
<TextBlock Text="{Binding PropertyName, RelativeSource={RelativeSource
AncestorType={x:Type YourPrefix:YourWindowOrControl}}}" />
I'm writting a form in WPF/c# with the MVVM pattern and trying to share data with a user control. (Well, the User Controls View Model)
I either need to:
Create a View model in the parents and bind it to the User Control
Bind certain classes with the View Model in the Xaml
Be told that User Controls arn't the way to go with MVVM and be pushed in the correct direction. (I've seen data templates but they didn't seem ideal)
The usercontrol is only being used to make large forms more manageable so I'm not sure if this is the way to go with MVVM, it's just how I would of done it in the past.
I would like to pass a class the VM contruct in the Xaml.
<TabItem Header="Applicants">
<Views:ApplicantTabView>
<UserControl.DataContext>
<ViewModels:ApplicantTabViewModel Client="{Binding Client} />
</UserControl.DataContext>
</Views:ApplicantTabView>
</TabItem>
public ClientComp Client
{
get { return (ClientComp)GetValue(ClientProperty); }
set { SetValue(ClientProperty, value); }
}
public static readonly DependencyProperty ClientProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("Client", typeof(ClientComp),
typeof(ApplicantTabViewModel),
new FrameworkPropertyMetadata
(null));
But I can't seem to get a dependancy property to accept non static content.
This has been an issue for me for a while but assumed I'd find out but have failed so here I am here.
Thanks in advance,
Oli
Oli - it is OK (actually - recommended) to split portions of the View into UserControl, if UI became too big - and independently you can split the view models to sub view models, if VM became too big.
It appears though that you are doing double-instantiations of your sub VM. There is also no need to create Dependency Property in your VM (actually, I think it is wrong).
In your outer VM, just have the ClientComp a regular property. If you don't intend to change it - the setter doesn't even have to fire a property changed event, although it is recommended.
public class OuterVm
{
public ClientComp Client { get; private set; }
// instantiate ClientComp in constructor:
public OuterVm( ) {
Client = new ClientComp( );
}
}
Then, in the XAML, put the ApplicantTabView, and bind its data context:
...
<TabItem Header="Applicants">
<Views:ApplicantTabView DataContext="{Binding Client}" />
</TabItem>
I answered a similar question as yours recently: passing a gridview selected item value to a different ViewModel of different Usercontrol
Essentially setting up a dependency property which allows data from your parent view to persist to your child user control. Abstracting your view into specific user controls and hooking them using dependency properties along with the MVVM pattern is actually quite powerful and recommended for Silverlight/WPF development, especially when unit testing comes into play. Let me know if you'd like any more clarification, hope this helps.
I took a course on VB.Net + WPF at university last year. For the final project, I decided to give MVVM a go (we hadn't discussed it at all in the course, I had just researched it and thought it would be a useful exercise). It was a good experience however I'm rather sure I might have made some poor choices when it came to design.
I've since graduated and my job has nothing to do with WPF or Windows development however I'm developing a small application in my own time and thought it would be fun to use C# and WPF (C# is a language I very much like to work with and I enjoyed working with WPF so it's a pretty logical choice).
Anyway, I'm using this as an opportunity to learn more about MVVM and try and implement it in a better way than I did previously. I've done a bit more reading and am finding it a lot easier to graph than I had when trying to implement it alongside learning WPF.
I've used In The Box MVVM Training as a guide and will be using Unity for dependency injection at this.
Now, in the sample app developed in the guide, there is a single view model (MainWindowViewModel). The MainWindow is pretty much a container with 3 or 4 UserControls which all share the DataContext of the MainWindow.
In my app, I'd like to have a tab-based interface. As such, the MainWindow will be primary concerned with displaying a list of buttons to switch the current view (i.e. move from the 'add' view to the 'list view'). Each view will be a self-contained UserControl which will implement it's own DataContext.
The same code in the app is as follows:
MainWindow window = container.Resolve<MainWindow>();
window.DataContext = container.Resolve<MainWindowViewModel>();
window.Show();
That's fine for setting data context of the MainWindow, however how will I handle assigning each user context it's own ViewModel as a DataContext?
EDIT: To be more specific, when I say tab-based interface, I don't mean it in the sense of tabs in a text editor or web browser. Rather, each 'tab' is a different screen of the application - there is only a single active screen at a time.
Also, while Slauma's post was somewhat helpful, it didn't really explain how I'd go about injecting dependencies to those tabs. If the NewStatementView, for example, was required to output it's data, how would I inject an instance of a class that implements the 'IStatementWriter' interface?
EDIT: To simplify my question, I'm basically trying to figure out how to inject a dependency to a class without passing every dependency through the constructor. As a contrived example:
Class A has Class B.
Class B takes as a constructor paramater needs an implementation of Interface I1.
Class B uses Class C.
Class C takes as a constructor paramater needs an implementation of Interface I2.
How would I handle this scenario using DI (and Unity)? What I don't want to do is:
public class A(I1 i1, I2 i2) { .... }
I could register everything using Unity (i.e. create I2, then C, then I1 and B, and then finally insert these into A) but then I would have to instantiate everything when I want to use A even if I might not even need an instance of B (and what if I had a whole bunch of other classes in the same situation as B?).
MVVM has lots of benefits, but in my experience wiring up the view models and the views is one of the biggest complexities.
There are two main ways to do this:
1:
Wire the view models to the views.
In this scenario, the XAML for the MainWindow contains the child controls. In your case, some of these views would probably be hidden (because you are only showing one screen at a time).
The view models get wired to the views, usually in one of two ways:
In the code behind, after the InitializeComponents() call or in a this.Loaded event handler, let this.DataContext = container.Resolve<MyViewModelType>();
Note that in this case the container needs to be globally available. This is typical in applications that use Unity. You asked how children would resolve interfaces like IStatementWriter. If the container is global, the child view models could simply call container.Resolve<IStatementWriter>();
Another way to wire the view models into the views is to create an instance of the view model in XAML like this:
<UserControl ...>
<UserControl.DataContext>
<local:MyViewModelType/>
</UserControl.DataContext>
...
</UserControl>
This method is not compatible with Unity. There are a few MVVM frameworks that allow you to resolve types in XAML (I believe Caliburn does). These frameworks accomplish this through markup extensions.
2:
Wire the view up to the view model.
This is usually my preferred method, although it makes the XAML tree more complicated. This method works very well when you need to perform navigation in the main view model.
Create the child view model objects in the main view model.
public class MainViewModel
{
public MyViewModelType Model1 { get; private set; }
public ViewModelType2 Model2 { get; private set; }
public ViewModelType3 Model3 { get; private set; }
public MainViewModel()
{
// This allows us to use Unity to resolve the view models!
// We can use a global container or pass it into the constructor of the main view model
// The dependencies for the child view models could then be resolved in their
// constructors if you don't want to make the container global.
Model1 = container.Resolve<MyViewModelType>();
Model2 = container.Resolve<ViewModelType2>();
Model3 = container.Resolve<ViewModelType3>();
CurrentViewModel = Model1;
}
// You will need to fire property changed notifications here!
public object CurrentViewModel { get; set; }
}
In the main view, create one or more content controls and set the content(s) to the view models that you want to display.
<Window ...>
...
<ContentControl Content="{Binding CurrentViewModel}">
<ContentControl.Resources>
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type local:MyViewModelType}">
<local:MyViewType/>
</DataTemplate>
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type local:ViewModelType2}">
<local:ViewType2/>
</DataTemplate>
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type local:ViewModelType3}">
<local:ViewType3/>
</DataTemplate>
</ContentControl.Resources>
</ContentControl>
...
</Window>
Notice that we tie the child views to the view models through data templates on the ContentControl. These data templates could have been defined at the Window level or even the Application level, but I like to put them in context so that it's easier to see how the views are getting tied to the view models. If we only had one type of view model for each ContentControl, we could have used the ContentTemplate property instead of using resources.
EDIT: In this method, the view models can be resolved using dependency injection, but the views are resolved through WPF's resource resolution mechanism. This is how it works:
When the content for a ContentPresenter (an underlying component in the ContentControl) is set to an object that is NOT a visual (not derived from the Visual class), WPF looks for a data template to display the object. First it uses any explicit data templates set on the host control (like the ContentTemplate property on the ContentControl). Next it searches up the logical tree, examining the resources of each item in the tree for a DataTemplate with the resource key {x:Type local:OBJECT_TYPE}, where OBJECT_TYPE is the data type of the content. Note that in this case, it finds the data templates that we defined locally. When a style, control template, or data template is defined with a target type but not a named key, the type becomes the key. The Window and Application are in the logical tree, so resources/templates defined here would also be found and resolved if they were not located in the resources of the host control.
One final comment. If a data template is not found, WPF calls ToString() on the content object and uses the result as the visual content. If ToString() is not overridden in some meaningful way, the result is a TextBlock containing the content type.
<--
When you update the CurrentViewModel property on the MainViewModel, the content and view in the main view will change automatically as long as you fire the property changed notification on the main view model.
Let me know if I missed something or you need more info.
For a Tab-based interface this classical article about MVVM pattern in WPF might be very useful. (It also offers a downloadable sample application.)
The basic idea to connect each tab with a UserControl is as follows (only a rough sketch, details are in the article):
The MainWindow View has a ContentControl ...
<ContentControl Content="{Binding Path=Workspaces}"
ContentTemplate="{StaticResource WorkspacesTemplate}" />
... which binds to a collection of "Workspaces" in the MainWindowViewModel:
public ObservableCollection<WorkspaceViewModel> Workspaces { get; private set; }
This WorkspaceViewModel serves as a base class for all ViewModels you want to display as a tab.
The WorkspacesTemplate is a DataTemplate which binds a TabControl to the collection of WorkspaceViewModels:
<DataTemplate x:Key="WorkspacesTemplate">
<TabControl IsSynchronizedWithCurrentItem="True"
ItemsSource="{Binding}" />
</TabControl>
</DataTemplate>
And for every specific Tab you have a UserControl with a ViewModel which derives from WorkspaceViewModel ...
public class MySpecialViewModel : WorkspaceViewModel
... and which is related to the UserControl by a DataTemplate:
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type vm:MySpecialViewModel}" >
<v:MySpecialUserControl />
</DataTemplate>
Now, if you want to open a tab you would have a Command in the MainWindowViewModel which creates the ViewModel belonging to that tab and add it to the Workspaces collection of the MainWindowViewModel:
void CreateMySpecialViewModel()
{
MySpecialViewModel workspace = new MySpecialViewModel();
Workspaces.Add(workspace);
}
The rest is done by the WPF binding engine. The TabControl recognizes automatically that this special workspace item in the collection is of type MySpecialViewModel and selects the right View/UserControl through the DataTemplate we have defined to connect ViewModel and View and displays it in a new Tab.
At the point where you resolve your Views deriving from UserControl, use property injection to resolve a new ViewModel for each one and set the DataContext property of the view to it.
I've created a new WPF project, and threw in a DataGrid. Now I'm trying to figure out the easiest way to bind a collection of data to it.
The example I downloaded seems to do it in the window c'tor:
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
DataContext = new ViewModel();
}
}
But then the bindings don't seem to appear in the Visual Studio's Properties window. I'm pretty sure there's a way to set the data context in XAML too... it would make me even happier if I could do it directly through the properties window, but all the Binding options are empty. What's the typical approach?
Edit: At 14 minutes, he starts to talk about other methods of setting the data context, such as static resources, and some "injection" method. I want to learn more about those!
What I typically do is use MVVM. You can implement a simplified version by setting the data context in your code behind and having a model type class that holds your data.
Example: In your code behind
DataContext = Model; // where Model is an instance of your model
then in your view
<DataGrid .... ItemsSource="{Binding SomeProperty}">....
Where SomeProperty is an enumerable property on your view model
You can also set a data context in XAML by using the DataContext property
<uc:SomeUserControl DataContext="{Binding AnotherProperty}"....
This will run your user control within the DataContext of the AnotherProperty on your model.
Note that this is grosely simplified but it'll get you on your way.
Have a look at the MVVM design pattern. This pattern is very suitable for wpf applications.
There is described where to store your data and how to bind your ui to the data.
I am new in the Wpf & Mvvm world , but I have found a couple of examples and just found that there is some different way to instantiate the model. I would like to know the best/correct way to do it. both ways are using Unity
What I've foud:
var navigatorView = new MainView();
navigatorView.DataContext = m_Container.Resolve<INavigatorViewModel>();
m_RegionManager.Regions["NavigatorRegion"].Add(navigatorView);
What I did:
var navigatorView = m_Container.Resolve<MainView>;
m_RegionManager.Regions["NavigatorRegion"].Add(navigatorView);
and I changed the constructor to receive viewmodel so I can point the datacontext to it:
public MainView(NavigatorViewModel navigatorViewModel)
{
this.DataContext = navigatorViewModel;
}
Other examples I've found another way like:
...vm = new viewmodel
...m = new model
v.model = vm;
get/set DataContext
cheers
I like Igor's suggestion, but without the viewmodel having knowledge of the view. I prefer my dependencies to go one direction (View -> ViewModel -> Model).
What I do is ViewModel-First and just DataTemplate the viewmodel. So I do this:
MainViewModel mainViewModel = container.Resolve<MainViewModel>();
region.Add(mainViewModel, "MainView");
region.Activate(mainViewModel);
With the addition of the ViewModel -> View mapping done with a WPF datatemplate (I don't think this approach is possible with Silverlight, though)
App.xaml:
<Application.Resources>
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type viewModels:MainViewModel}">
<views:MainView />
</DataTemplate>
</Application.Resources>
That's it! I love this approach. I like the way it feels like magic. It also has the following advantages:
Don't have to modify constructors to suit the mapping
Don't have to register type for IMyViewModel in the container... you can work with concrete types. I like to keep my registrations to application services like IViewRegistry or ILogger... those kinds of things
You can change the mapping using resources scoped to a particular view that a region is in (this is nice if you want to reuse your ViewModels but want them to look different in different areas of the application
What you got there makes sense and in both cases is a View-first approach to creating a viewmodel. I.e. the view creates the ViewModel. In the original example the viewmodel is created outside of the view (and is sometimes referred to as marriage pattern), but as far as I am concerned that's the same thing - creation of the view creates the ViewModel.
If this suits your needs stick with it. Another approach you might look into is ViewModel first where the viewmodel takes a dependency on the view like so:
//In the bare-bones(i.e. no WPF dependencies) common interface assembly
interfac IView {
void ApplyViewModel(object viewmodel);
}
interface IMainView : IView {
//this interface can actually be empty.
//It's only used to map to implementation.
}
//In the ViewModel assembly
class MainViewModel {
public MainViewModel(IMainView view) {
view.ApplyViewModel(this);
}
}
public partial class MainView : UserControl, IMainView {
void ApplyViewModel(object viewmodel){
DataContext = viewmodel;
}
}
Then you can inject this view like so:
IRegion region = regionManager.Regions["MainRegion"];
//This might look strange as we are resolving the class to itself, not an interface to the class
//This is OK, we want to take advantage of the DI container
//to resolve the viewmodel's dependencies for us,
//not just to resolve an interface to the class.
MainViewModel mainViewModel = container.Resolve<MainViewModel>();
region.Add(mainViewModel.View, "MainView");
region.Activate(ordersView.View);