Let's presume, that we want to create a UserControl and make it able to be styled by the caller.
What are the options we have in such a case?
As I understand we can use DynamicResources in xaml of the UserControl.
We can expose some DPs and bind the UserControl's elements to them.
Sometimes I face the situations when I use a UserControl but it can't be rendered on the screen. If this happens, I start to explore the solution and try to understand what resources can't be found by the UserControl.
This leads to the significant loss of time.
How can we prevent such the troubles?
A solution that I see is to write some code inside those UserControls which use DynamicResources with intention to try to find the required resources and throw an exception. It can simplify the debugging.
The more resources we have in a solution, the more headache we suffer from.
You should use the dependency properties and then the consumer/host of the control can bind dynamic resources to them either declaratively or programmatically.
Don't go looking for dynamic resources yourself, this introduces a dependencies into your control, instead you should work with what you are given. You can default to in built styles if you're not given anything.
The only time you should think about defaulting to externally defined dynamic resources is when you've got a really complex control (like a data grid) and you also supply theme assemblies (like control vendors do). Other than that, using the DP approach is more manageable and easier for you to document.
In any case you shouldn't throw exceptions if dynamic resources are not found. If you are programmatically looking for a resource and fail to find it then have a default. If you are binding to a dynamic resources source declaratively in XAML then either let the normal binding error occur if it isn't found, or use a proxy dependency property combined with a data trigger
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.
I am new to Silverlight, but I couldn't find anything about this when I googled it.
I have a button that I am trying to set the style programatically. I have the style defined in a XAML file and I want to pull the style into C# so I can dynamically create a button and assign it this style. So far, this is what I am trying:
button.Style = (Style)Resources["CloseButtonStyle"];
However, it just makes the button have no style. Is there an easy way to do this? I feel like this should be obvious, but I can't get it to work.
You are assuming that your Resources property on the current object is the one that contains the defined style. However, I assume, given the symptoms of your issue, that CloseButtonStyle is actually defined further up the control hierarchy.
Instead, you need to traverse your control hierarchy until you find the resource (or if you know the object that defines it, just refer directly to that object). Unfortunately, Silverlight doesn't include FindResource call like WPF, but it's not too difficult to implement your own.
I can call button1.Style = (Style)Resources["NonExistentKey"]; and it makes my button have no style at all as well, point being that the resource is probably not being found, you won't get an exception.
You directly access the Resources property, but is the style really in the immediate resource dictionary of your Window/UserControl/whatever-you-have?
When writing WPF/Silverlight applications, I sometimes struggle when determining whether or not a property should go inside a style or be left directly on the element. What guidelines do you use when deciding?
I think it generally comes down to style reuse and overall project organization.
If it is a style you are going to be reusing across many different elements in a control (such as Brushes) or even in many different controls in your project you are obviously going to want to pull it out into its own resource. For better organization you probably even going to want to put these shared styles in their own resource dictionary file and used MergedDictionaries to pull them in to different controls. You can actually create some pretty useful cascading effects between different styles using the BasedOn attribute as well.
When it comes down just a "one-off" feature of a specific element I think its fine to keep style attributes directly on the element. If it doesn't need to be shared and the style is unique to the one element (specific Border, Margin, etc) it is much easier and more readable to keep it directly on the element.
Very good question. There are two situations where I move a property into a style.
1) Over Crowded Properties - Over crowded properties are nothing but, too many properties for customizing an element. Say for example. If you have a text block and want to customize almost all the properties. Then, it'll reduce the readability. That too if it has somethings like triggers. It'll be too much crowded. By that time, I used to move them to a style.
2) Repeatedly Used Styles - This is obvious case, if I want to apply a same set of properties to be applied for a control. Usually we do this by x:key or TargetType.
HTH
I wanted to know which one amongst Style and UserControl would be better to use in WPF?
For example:
I have created an image button in two different ways.
One uses Style and ContentTemplate property is set.
It uses one other class with dependency properties.
The other way is I have created a UserControl which has a button and its content property is set.
The file UserControl.xaml.cs also contains the dependency properties.
For Code details see the answers of this question:
Custom button template in WPF
Which one would be better to use? In which scenario should one go for Style or UserControl or any CustomControl?
Styles are limited to setting default properties on XAML elements. For example, when I set the BorderBrush , I can specify the brush but not the width of the border. For complete freedom of a control’s appearance, use templates. To do this, create a style and specify the Template property.
Styles and templates still only allow you to change the appearance of a control. To add behavior and other features, you’ll need to create a custom control.
For example,
To create a button like a play button use styles and templates, but to create a a play button which will change its appearance after pausing it use UserControl.
For this type of thing I would go with Style, even though I'm not really adept with graphical tools. I tend to produce a basic, boring style that I can get started with and then prettify it once the application functionality has been verified.
The nicest thing about WPF is being able to distance much of the graphical look, feel and behaviour away from the code.
This allows you to change the style of your application without revisiting the code and indeed means that you can change styles on the fly at runtime.
There is an awkward line to tread with regards to how much behaviour is placed within the XAML and how much is placed within the code. A rough guide would be to decide on what behaviour must always be present within the UI and place that in the code, everything else place within the XAML.
Think of the code as being an abstract class with defined interfaces and the XAML Styles as being classes based on that class and you'll get an idea of what I mean.
Conversely, I know that people who are far more adept at the GUI work prefer to put more functionality in the XAML and others who prefer the code side, because they find the GUI work slow or difficult.
When thought of that way you'll see that there's never really a right or wrong answer, just better solutions that suit your skills.
(honestly I searched and read all the 'related questions' that seemed relevant - i do hope i didn't "miss" this question from elsewhere but here goes...)
There are two different ways (at least) to set the DataContext. One can use XAML or one can use the code behind.
What is the 'best practice' and why?
I tend to favor setting it in XAML because it allows a designer to define collections on their own but I need 'ammunition' on why it's a best practice or why I'm crazy and the code behind is the bomb...
A third way you might look at is using a locator service. I usually have one class that is responsible for the creation of all my DataContext(VM's in most cases for me) and I create an instance of that class in the App.xaml Resources. Then I bind the DataContext in the XAML of each individual page.
i.e.
<Page DataContext="{Binding ViewModel,Source={StaticResource Locator}}" >
I think it depends on what you are setting the DataContext to, and ultimately personal preference.
I personally always do it in the code behind of my views because I find it overall cleaner, and it was how I was taught MVVM. Another thing to keep in mind is, there are times you may need to change your datacontext depending on what you are working with. If this is the case it's much cleaner/easier to do in the code behind rather than in XAML.
As you can see by the answers so far opinion is divided. In truth there is no best practice (I do get bee in my bonet about discusions of "best practice" in the Silverlight world, its way too young for best practice to be truely known.)
The reality actually is that you can't set the "data context" in Xaml. Unless you actually construct an object instance like this:-
<UserControl>
<UserControl.DataContext>
<local:MyDataProviderThing />
Ultimately something external has to assign either the DataContext property directly or indirectly via another property or via binding (as in Stephan's answer). Its this external context which is dictates whether it makes sense to do it in Xaml or not. Many MVVM solutions use a binding in Xaml, in some cases simply to avoid there having to be any code at all in code-behind rather than it truely being "better". Others set up the DataContext in code using a base class that your control derives from.
DataContext of the user control/view I assume? One advantage of setting data context in the code behind is the availability of dependency injection. Your DI container can take care of any dependencies for you dynamically at run-time.
With this pattern, I frequently set a view's Blend design DataContext in xaml using d:DataContext. The "design version" can provide mock data for use in Blend, while the true implementation is resolved at run-time.