I've seen many data binding frameworks, such as WPF, AngularJS(Javascript), JSTL(JSP).
They are trying to separate UI and Data completely.
However, one main problem is that it adds complexity. Sometime, you have to write a lot of extra code (for example to extend a view class) just for one line of UI code.
In modern applications, there are many transition animations when changing one UI element from one state to another state. When use data binding framework, it seems not easy.
Are there any other cons of using a data binding framework?
For example, to set focus on a text input, so complex in AngularJS, See:
How to set focus on input field?
All of the following refers to the WPF.
You have to write a lot of extra code (for example to extend a view class) just for one line of UI code.
With regard to the WPF, this is rare situation, you can give an example?
There are many transition animations when changing one UI element from one state to another state.
In WPF since version .NET 3.5 appeared VisualStateManager:
The VisualStateManager enables you to specify states for a control, the appearance of a control when it is in a certain state, and when a control changes states.
His goal - is to define the application state, and each state to do an action, such as an animation. In this situation Binding is not used as such.
When use data binding framework, it seems not easy.
I do not think it's disadvantage. Data Binding needed as you mentioned: separate UI and Data completely. In fact, the whole MVVM pattern is based on a powerful technology as Data Binding. This feature allows you to create an abstract connection between Model and View via ViewModel. And the key word is Data, everywhere where there is work with the data, it is better to use Data Binding.
Binding allows you to do many interesting things, such as Validation, Converters and much more. It is typically used for Binding properties, and nothing more. To work with the UI using other features like VisualStateManager, Triggers, DataTriggers, etc. and it is not difficult when you use it to its destination, just need to get used to.
The only downside - is that Binding can be used for other purposes, such as use of the Converter when you can not do without it. And yes, at first it may seem unusual, but I do not think that this a drawback, the same can be said about other technologies.
Even as a drawback can be said about the performance. If you assign a value directly or via Binding, assigning a value directly will be faster. But I think that the advantages of Bindings allow not pay much attention to it.
Related
My MVVM program is a media player and uses the Media Element's Natural Duration property to set the Media Timeline's duration. Before I implemented MVVM design pattern, I could simply put
MyMediaTimeline.Duration = MyMediaElement.NaturalDuration;
in the code-behind. I am new to using MVVM but I believe this is not the correct way to perform this action according to the MVVM design pattern. I believe that MediaElement.NaturalDuration is not a dependency property so it cannot be bound to directly. Do I need to make it a dependency property somehow? Would this be coded in the ViewModel?
When we need to implement functionality like this that relates to UI controls using MVVM, we have a few options. One is to implement some kind of service or manager class that can implement this functionality for us and another is to use Attached Properties. Out of these two options, I believe this second option to be more suitable for this problem.
However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with adding event handlers into the code behind of your view, even when using MVVM. I keep seeing new users panicking over what to do rather than use the code behind when using MVVM. This is a common misconception about MVVM.
If you really know how to use Attached Properties properly, then I would advise that you use one (or more) of those to solve your problem, otherwise I would happily advise you to use the code behind. Note that if your view models are correctly data bound to your views, then you can access your view model from the code behind like this:
TypeOfViewModel viewModel = (TypeOfViewModel)DataContext;
I have a large number of styles defined for my grid (cell colors based on state, etc.). Right now I use DataTriggers to set the appropriate colors. I am looking to improve the performance of my app and was thinking that the large number of styles may be causing a slow down (due to the data changing constantly and the styles needing to be recalculated/refreshed). Is it better to use data binding with converters instead of DataTriggers?
If the goal can be achieved using either method, is there any performance difference? I am not familiar with what is going on behind the scenes so I can't be sure.
In this episode of the Hanselminutes podcast, guest Laurent Bugnion (creator of MVVM Light) describes that there is a performance hit associated with using converters. He indicates that it is almost always negligible in desktop applications, but that in WP7 applications, it is recommended that viewmodels expose things like brushes directly, rather than relying heavily on converters, especially if dealing with list virtualization, in which case scrolling will cause many invocations of the conversion.
It is possible that a similar thing is occurring in your scenario, just given the volume of triggers (or conversions if you made that switch).
As a proof of concept, you might consider wrapping your view-model in a "WPF Viewmodel," that exposes the colors and other WPF-specific values themselves, rather than some value from which the colors can be determined by the runtime invoking triggers and IValueConverters. You'll then be able to bind directly to that, and use neither triggers nor converters. I'd be interested to hear the results.
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 need some advice on implementing UIs in WPF.
So far, I've been using Code-Behinds, which is extremely easy to get-started, but hell when maintaining/changing/testing.
I've looked at MVP (and its WPF variant - MVVM), but having some trouble getting started.
Assuming I have a UI to build, here's what I think I should do:
1.
Create a "Main UI" Mediator class which specifies ALL high-level operations (LoadSettings(), SetVisibility() ) and events (not triggered by the user, e.g, model data changed) that my UI supports.
2.
Create the "Model" classes to represent the data
3.
Create "ViewModel" classes for my model classes.
4.
For complex behaviours (e.g, a sequence of operations need to be done before the UI can/should update, such as modifying items in a collection), do not rely on ViewModels to update the UI. Instead, do it manually through the Main UI Mediator class.
5.
For simple behaviours (e.g, toggling the visibility/enabled states/etc), use WPF binding to bind the ViewModels' properties directly to the UI.
In this case, the Main UI Mediator class would maintain both the ViewModel and Model objects, and delegate user interactions (to the Model) and UI update requests (to the ViewModel/View) appropriately. The Mediator class also provides a centralised interface which specifies the functionalities of the UI, while acting as a Change Manager (described in GOF's Observer Pattern) to handle complex UI behaviour/reduce redundant UI updates.
Am I on the right track? Should I tweak my approach? Change it completely? At the moment, I lack the experience/knowledge to implement huge/complex UIs, so I don't really know whether I'm on the right track.
Thanks
This is a bit long, sorry about that!
So far, I've been using Code-Behinds, which is extremely easy to get-started, but hell when maintaining/changing/testing.
Yep :) Anytime you have to name a control and write "someControl dot blah" in your code-behind, that's a code smell. It's sometimes unavoidable, but try to limit it as much as possible. Your UI is a projection of the model - ViewModels and ValueConverters are a way to deal with the impedance mismatch between the two domains.
A few problems with your approach:
Create a "Main UI" Mediator class which specifies ALL high-level operations
Instead of doing this, your Window class acts as the "Controller"; the important thing is, use Commanding to define your top-level actions. This way, you can have UserControls decoupled from the Window class, because the UserControl will just call Commands.Open.Execute(null, this), and the Window can handle it, and the UserControl will never explicitly have a dependency on the Window.
Create "ViewModel" classes for my model classes.
In MVVM, the VM part is to help you out - if you can get away with binding directly to the model (i.e. the data doesn't change or you don't mind implementing INotifyPropertyChanged in your models), then doing this (even if you have to use a few IValueConverter classes) is okay. ViewModels are mostly used when the view is so different from the model representation that it'd be ugly to hack up your model, or to "tack on" extra properties that only make sense in this particular view.
while acting as a Change Manager...
Remember that WPF does this for you, via Dependency Properties and INotifyPropertyChanged; don't reinvent the wheel; if you write an OnDataUpdate() function, this is a sign you're not using data binding properly.
e.g, a sequence of operations need to be done before the UI can/should update, such as modifying items in a collection
This is where Commanding is great - your CanExecute function can apply arbitrarily complex logic to decide whether a certain operation can be done, and if you bind it to UI elements like Menus or Buttons, they will automatically disable/enable as needed.
It hasn't been mentioned, but do all of your UI design in XAML.
There is nothing worse than seeing WPF UI's being created via code-behind.
Or do you populate your form controls manually by a method?
Is either considered a best practice?
Generally, if data binding business or DAL objects is possible, I would use it. The old axiom holds true: The most error-free and reliable line of code is often the one you didn't have to write. (Bear in mind, however, that you need to know exactly how that data binding occurs, what its overhead is, and you have to be able to trust the framework and your source objects to be error-free!)
You would, as others have mentioned, manually populate if you needed specific functionality not brought to bear directly by binding, or if there is an issue with data binding business/DAL objects (as occasionally happens with certain 3rd-party controls).
Well, it depends. I have tended to use databinding wherever I could - it is darn convenient, but on occasion, I'll populate them manually. Particularly, I find it useful with controls like the DataGridView to use databinding. It makes filtering quite simple.
It really depends from what you are trying to achieve.
Databinding is simple and powerful, but if you need more control or some kind of side effect, you can manually populate control from a method.
Personally, I start with a databinding first, than change it later if it is necessary.