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;
Related
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
I am starting my way with MVVM..
I already implemented a window and need to change it to be mvvm
but.. in my window i have a function that searches the visual tree
how can i do this in my view model? i cannot access a function in the view from viewmodel..
You can create a custom interface that exposes that function and inject its implementation in your ViewModel.
It might not be the most elegant solution, but it is a quick one, (mock-)testable and loosely-coupled.
Please refer to this answer for a well-written example:
How to play Sound and Animations in MVVM
You don't do that in your ViewModel. Accessing the View should be done in the View and if that requires code an option would be to develop a control that contains the code and use the control in the View.
Do not add any knowledge about the View to the ViewModel. That would mess up the pattern and remove (some of) the benefits of MVVM.
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.
This will probably be obvious but I can't find the best way.
I want to show the user's ToDo's in a listbox. These ToDo's are in the database and consist of an Id, UserId and Description.
The user logged in to the app.
How can I retrieve the ToDo's for that certain userId and set it up for binding to the listbox?
I was trying with an ObjectDataProvider but I cant figure out how to use that in combination with nonstatic stuff (like my _dbService, userId, language, ...).
Are the only options to make all those things static versus binding in the code behind?
If so, this means that ObjectDataProvider isn't very useful, no?
I find a lot of examples of it being used with a hardcoded parameter but I hardly see any situation where I'd need such a functionality..
I do all my WPF using the Model-View-ViewModel pattern. I've given you one link there but Google will give you loads. MVVM seems to be the standard pattern for WPF. This project is probably more complicated than you need but it is well-written and brings home the use of MVVM.
Basically, you create a Model of your data. In this case, you'd probably create a simple class (I'll call it ToDoItem) with properties Id, UserID and Description. Use your preferred mechanism to get a collection of these from the database. Link to SQL, Entity Framework, a standard query, whatever.
Then you have your ViewModel - you have an instance of the ViewModel for each instance of the Model: the VM has a reference to the M and 'forwards' properties to it. The ViewModel is what you use to manipulate the model.
Then you have your View - this is the UI. You set the DataContext of the View to be the ViewModel and then your bindings automatically bind to the ViewModel. Your View just ends up being the things you can see. All of the work gets done in the ViewModel. This means it's very easy to test.
So, when you click on a button in your View, the bindings pass this onto a Command in your ViewModel which manipulates the Model.
The UI is also a View with a ViewModel. So, your UI VM might load a collection of Models from the database and stick them in an ObservableCollection. The ListBox items collection would be bound to this ObservableCollection.
It's hard to explain all of this in a post like this. Read a couple of articles and see what you think. I'm still quite new at this, too, but I believe my reading about MVVM has paid off.
Hela Thomas, Tom here from Orbit One :)
MVVM is the way to go. I'm on my 4th project and WPF really shines if you use mvvm. You already tried MVC (or MVP as we did on recy*tyre) and that's a nice separation of concern.
MVVM takes it a step further since the viewmodel knows absolutely nothing about the view.
The view binds to the viewmodel, so it has a reference to it (2 way, super powerful and works beyond the typical MS demo). The viewmodel is just a poco and is a representation of your view, data + behaviour. Once you dig this paragraph the cool term mvvm will have no secrets.
I see if I can come up with a small demo. Maybe I'll have time later.
What I will come up with is a view (xaml, file 1) that binds to a viewmodel (file 2, a poco class, not to be mistaken with code behind). The model can be whatever you like (service layer or directly to the repositories). Using the power of 2 way binding we will bind to an observable collection meaning that if we add/delete/... something to the collection the view will pick it up without us putting energy into it.
My first 2 wpf projects was done with Caliburn Micro (see codeplex) which is a powerful framework based on conventions. It shields you away from hardcore wpf (creating tour dependency properties yourself mainly) and you can create something relatively fast without fully understanding wpf. That's a downside of itself but it worked for me. As of project 3 I started taming those dependency properties myself and it will make you a better wpf developer.
I see the question is from October.. did you find a good solution?
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.