I have a project that gets data from a database and binds that data to some elements in xaml. I have added a button that fetches new data from the database and want to refresh the data bound elements in the xaml.
Now, I know the proper way of doing this is to implement the INotifyPropertyChanged events in the data class but I wanted to avoid this as there are so many properties. I figured out that simply calling 'this.DataContext = data;' after I have retrieved the new data from the database updates the binding in xaml.
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this method?
Thanks!
Quite simply, if you don't want to implement the INotifyPropertyChanged interface, then don't use WPF. WPF is quite often a verbose language... it took me a while to get used to this. While there are mechanisms like Converters, Styles and Attached Properties that enable us to reuse code, you will often find yourself writing code that you've written before. Just get used to it, or change languages.
To summarise, you can't write effective applications in WPF without implementing the INotifyPropertyChanged interface.
If you don't use INotifyPropertyChanged interface you don't allow the binding mechanism to work since it wont know of any changes of your data.
The data binding is one of the most powerful tools in WPF if you dont use it you will have to write the propagation of the data changes between you model and the UI yourself like it was done in Winforms....
if its too hard to write the implementation for each property of each class in your than you can create a code snippet.. like prop/propdp
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;
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 using MVVM Light toolkit (which I love). I currently have messaging in place for some interaction originating from the ViewModel and intended for consumption by the View. Typically these types of messages indicate the View should do something like hide itself, show a confirmation message that data was saved, etc.
This works. In the constructor for the View, I register with the Messenger:
Messenger.Default.Register<NotificationMessage<PaperNotification>>(this, n => HandlePaperNotification(n));
When I'm using the Messenger to communicate cross-cutting concerns between ViewModels (like identity), I can see that when the ViewModel is cleaned up in the ViewModelLocator, the base class for ViewModels (ViewModelBase) unregisters any subscribed messages. I don't have to do anything, as MVVM Light Toolkit handles that for me. However, when I use them in the Views, I have to expressly unregister them at Closing time, like so:
Messenger.Default.Unregister(this);
I suppose I could implement a base class for Views to inherit from.
However, it strikes me that perhaps this is a code smell to be using the Messenger in the View... it works, but it might not be the best way. I'm wondering if I should instead create a property on the ViewModel and bind whatever part of the View's elements to it. In the example of hiding a form, a property could be a boolean called "Show". As I think about it, I can see that in many cases this will result in having to write a ValueConverter. One way seems less testable. The other way seems to require much more code and perhaps the introduction of excess ValueConverters, which could become a code smell in themselves.
So (after all that build up) my question is this:
Is it preferable to use messages within the View or is it better to add properties (and potentially ValueConverters) to allow the ViewModel to drive it in a more bindable fashion?
In MVVM. ViewModel comunicates with View through DataBinding and Commands. If you need some other functionality, you need to implement it using this means.
Messaging is supposed to be only for ViewModels. Views are supposed to be "stupid" visualisers of your data in ViewModel.
The Messaging logic in MVVM Light is there for communication between ViewModels. I've never run into any communication between View and ViewModel that I couldn't solve with binding and/or commands. Sometimes I need Value Converters and sometimes I need code in the code-behind, but I've never had to make the ViewModel directly push data to the View.
This is an interesting discussion and I found this thread when I was wondering about view model to view communication. Interestingly, MVVMLight's creator seems to find it perfectly acceptable to send messages from a view model to a view. Another example of differing opinions about what is a good MVVM design.
Sorry if this has already been asked, but I just want to make sure that I'm doing this right.
If I have a domian object that has say 10 properties on it. I have a grid on my main form that I want to show the pretty much all the the properties from the model.
I created a viewmodel to wrap the domain object to show in the gridview but then I have to expose all the properties again. I just feel binding straight against the model through the viewmodel feels dirty and defects the purpose a bit.
So for example I don't really like this:
{Binding DomainObject.Property}
where DomainObject is property on my view model.
So my main question is, should I expose all the properties on the model through the view model just to bind it to the grid?
EDIT: Just for added information the domian objects are LINQ-To-SQL objects, so I don't think they implement INotifyPropertyChanged but I'm not sure.
Some people will say it doesn't matter, others say it does. I'm in the latter camp, for these reasons:
You increase the dependencies of the view, as it now depends on the data model, not just the view model.
You require the designers need to know the properties and structure of your data model.
You create more work for the (almost inevitable) refactoring when you decide you need a layer of indirection for formatting, validation, or whatever it might be.
As Thomas pointed out, data models often don't implement change notification
Yes, it's a little more work, but I believe it's worth it to reduce decoupling, maintenance headaches, collaboration with designers, and correctness.
PS. If you find yourself in this situation a lot, you might consider an implementation of ICustomTypeDescriptor that wraps any data object and exposes its properties with change notification. That way your VM can extend this generic wrapper until you decide you need to pull properties out for purposes such as formatting and validation.
If you need change notification on the properties and the model doesn't implement INotifyPropertyChanged, then you need to create new properties on the ViewModel. Otherwise, it's probably not a big issue to bind directly to the model : the MVVM pattern is just a guideline, you can bend the rules a little if necessary...
I think it is a matter of personal preference. I happen to believe it is perfectly fine to expose the Model in a single object from the ViewModel. Recreating all the properties of the Model in the ViewModel just results in a bunch of extra code.
However, this only works provided your Model implements change notifications so the data binding works.
Ok,
So I have been stalled in my latest non-work project, trying to use WPF. I am just frankly annoyed at databinding. I thought it was supposed to make things simpler by binding data directly to the UI. But the more I learn about having to implement INotifyPropertyChanged to get things to notify the UI if they changed, seems to make the whole thing counter productive.
Am I missing something? It seems like a bunch of work and having to make the classes implemented INotifyPropertyChanged seems like a fishy way to get databinding to work.
What am I missing? I must be missing something. Please enlighten me into how to make databinding easy, or at the least straightforward.
If you want the UI be notified when the underlying data source changes, then you need some sort of notification mechanism. For WPF, INotifyPropertyChanged is that mechanism.
It's the same in Windows Forms as well, but Windows Forms also supports the old notification mechanism, where you have an event with the name <Property>Changed.
However, neither of these required these mechanisms if all you want to do is bind to the data once and display it.
If you are ok with not receiving notifications, then just bind to the data source and it will work.
Truth be told, I haven't seen that it was that bad, and think it a highly workable solution.
Take this simple, Data Model object:
Public Class SimpleItemViewModel
Implements INotifyPropertyChanged
Private _item As String
Public Property Item As String
Get
return _item
End Get
Set (value as string)
_item = value : OnPropertyChanged("Item")
End Set
End Property
Protected Overridable Sub OnPropertyChanged(propChange as string)
Raise Event PropertChanged(me, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propChange))
End Sub
Public Event PropertyChanged(sender as object, e as PropertyChangedEventArgs)
End Class
That is easily bound to a simple Textbox via:
<Textbox Text="{Binding Item}" />
additionally, if I wanted to have a DIRTY flag, I can easily put the flag being set in the OnPropertyChanged sub, and easily determine if I need to save any user changes or not.
I have found it easiest to have a set of classes which rest between the Data Access layer and the UI which holds this stuff. You can even have your Business Logic and DAL pass these classes around rather than the atomic values.
Implementing INotifyProperty changed is not particularly difficult, seeing as it only has one member.
If you don't expect changes in the underlying object then don't worry about INotifyProperty changed, and use a Binding with Mode=OneTime.
If the underlying object can change and you want the GUI to reflect those changes, then how else can this be achieved without the kind of notification that INotifyProperty changed provides? It's not reasonable to expect a bound item to poll its binding's source.
Personally I've found WPF has taken some time to get to grips with, but now that I'm gaining comfort I'm finding it incredibly powerful and enjoyable to work with. I encourage anyone who's finding WPF challenging to stick with it.
Binding in XAML is quite easy, however, dynamic WPF data binding in code is painful and confusing.
DataBinding is the only way to implement a model-view pattern in WPF/Silverlight. Your models can be UI-stupid by implementing INotifyPropertyChanged, which isolates them from the UI. It also saves a lot of UI code when stuffing information into the UI.
Another benefit that I enjoy is the ability to further bind child controls with the same data by using the { Binding } shortcut.
First, INotifyPropertyChanged isn't the only way to get data binding to work - dependency properties work too.
Second, INotifyPropertyChanged can be implemented with just one line of code in your entity class, if you use AOP - you don't actually have to do all those notification calls yourself.
Overall, I'd say data binding is a great boon, especially when you're doing code generation to make automatically bound controls from some data source.
If you're looking for a good way to think about structuring your data binding, then aim to set a DataContext on your logical tree only once, then use binding paths to populate the various parts of your UI.
Be as declarative as you can in your binding. Let the template system do it's job and make heavy use of DataTemplates that specify explicit DataTypes.