I am building composite WPF application using MVVM-light. I have Views that have ViewModels injected into them using MEF:
DataContext = App.Container.GetExportedValue<ViewModelBase>(
ViewModelTypes.ContactsPickerViewModel);
In addition, I have ViewModels for each View (Screens and UserControls), where constructor usually looks like this:
private readonly ICouchDataModel _couchModel;
[ImportingConstructor]
public ContactsPickerControlViewModel(ICouchDataModel couchModel)
{
_couchModel = couchModel;
_couchModel.GetContactsListCompleted+=GetContactsListCompleted;
_couchModel.GetConcatcsListAsync("Andy");
}
Currently, I have some performance issues. Everything is just slow.
I have 2 kind of related questions
What is the right way of calling DAL methods asynchronously (that access my couchdb)? await/async? Tasks? Because currently I have to write a lot of wrappers(OnBegin, OnCompletion) around each operation, I have GetAsyncResult method that does some crazy things with ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem , Action etc.
I hope there is the more elegant way of calling
Currently, I have some screens in my application and on each screen, there are different custom UserControls, some of them need same data (or slightly changed) from DB.
Questions: what is the right way to share datasource among them? I am mostly viewing data, not editing.
Example: On Screen A: I have Contacts dropdown list user control (UC1), and contact details user control(UC2). In each user control, their ViewModel is calling DAL:
_couchModel.GetConcatcsListAsync("Andy");
And on completion I assign result data to a property:
List<ContactInfo> ContactsList = e.Resuls;
ContactsList is binded to ItemsSource of DropDownListBox in UC1. The same story happens in UC2. So I end up with 2 exactly same calls to DB.
Also If I go to Screen B, where I have UC1, I’ll make another call to DB, when I’ll go to Screen B from Screen A.
What is the right way to making these interaction ? e.g. Getting Data and Binding it to UC.
Thank you.
Ad.1
I think you can simply use Task.Factory to invoke code asynchronously (because of that you can get rid off OnBegin, OnCompletion) or if you need more flexibility, than you can make methods async.
Ad. 2
The nice way (in my opinion) to do it is to create DatabaseService (singleton), which would be injected in a constructor. Inside DatabaseService you can implement some logic to determine whether you want to refresh a collection(call DAL) or return the same (it would be some kind of cache).
Then you can call DatabaseService instead of DAL directly and DatabaseService will decide what to do with this call (get collection from DB or return the same or slightly modified current collection).
Edit:
DatabaseService will simply share a collection of objects between ViewModels.
Maybe the name "DBCacheService" would be more appropriate (you will probably use it only for special tasks as caching collections).
I don't know your architecture, but basically you can put that service in your client application, so the plan would be:
Create DatabaseService.cs
[Export(typeof(IDatabaseService))]
public class DatabaseService : IDatabaseService
{
private List<object> _contacts = new List<object>();
public async Task<List<object>> GetConcatcsList(string name)
{
if (_contacts.Count == 0)
{
//call DAL to get it
//_contacts = await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => dal.GetContactsList(name));
}
else
{
//refresh list if required (there could be some condition)
}
return _contacts;
}
}
Add IDatabaseService to your ViewModel's constructor.
Call IDatabaseService instead of DAL.
If you choose async version of DatabaseService, then you'll need to use await and change your methods to async. You can do it also synchronously and call it (whenever you want it to be asynchronous) like that:
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
var result = dbService.GetContactsList("Andy");
});
Edit2:
invoking awaitable method inside Task:
Task.Factory.StartNew(async () =>
{
ListOfContacts = await _CouchModel.GetConatcsList ("Andy");
});
Related
My goal is to keep session size as small as possible. (Why?.. it's other topic).
What I have is Phase listener declared in faces-config.xml
<lifecycle>
<phase-listener>mypackage.listener.PhaseListener</phase-listener>
</lifecycle>
I want to save all other views, except the last one(maximum two) , in some memcache. Getting the session map:
Map<String, Object> sessionMap = event.getFacesContext().getExternalContext().getSessionMap();
in beforePhase(PhaseEvent event) method is giving me access to all views. So here I could save all views to the memcache and delete them from the session. The question is where in jsf these views that are still loaded in the browser are requested so that I can refill with this view if it's needed. Is it possible at all? Thank you.
To address the core of your question, implement a ViewHandler, within which you can take control of the RESTORE_VIEW and RENDER_RESPONSE phases/processes. You'll save the view during the RENDER_RESPONSE and selectively restore, during the RESTORE_VIEW phase. Your view handler could look something like the following
public class CustomViewHandlerImpl extends ViewHandlerWrapper{
#Inject ViewStore viewStore; //hypothetical storage for the views. Could be anything, like a ConcurrentHashMap
ViewHandler wrapped;
public CustomViewHandlerImpl(ViewHandler toWrap){
this.wrapped = toWrap;
}
public UIViewRoot restoreView(FacesContext context, String viewId) throws IOException{
//this assumes you've previously saved the view, using the viewId
UIViewRoot theView = viewStore.get(viewId);
if(theView == null){
theView = getWrapped().restoreView(context, viewId);
}
return theView;
}
public void renderView(FacesContext context, UIViewRoot viewToRender) throws IOException, FacesException{
viewStore.put(viewToRender.getId(),viewToRender);
getWrapped().renderView(context, viewToRender);
}
}
Simply plug in your custom viewhandler, using
<view-handler>com.you.customs.CustomViewHandlerImpl</view-handler>
Of course, you probably don't want to give this treatment to all your views; you're free to add any conditions to the logic above, to implement conditional view-saving and restoration.
You should also consider other options. It appears that you're conflating issues here. If your true concern is limit the overhead associated with view processing, you should consider
Stateless Views, new with JSF-2.2. The stateless view option allows you to exclude specific pages from the JSF view-saving mechanism, simply by specifying transient="true" on the f:view. Much cleaner than mangling the UIViewRoot by hand. The caveat here is that a stateless view cannot be backed by scopes that depend on state-saving, i.e. #ViewScoped. In a stateless view, the #ViewScoped bean is going to be recreated for every postback. Ajax functionality also suffers in this scenario, because state saving is the backbone of ajax-operations.
Selectively set mark components as transient The transient property is available for all UIComponents, which means, on a per-view basis, you can mark specific components with transient="true", effectively giving you the same benefits as 1) but on a much smaller scope. Without the downside of no ViewScoped
EDIT: For some reason, UIViewRoot#getViewId() is not returning the name of the current view (this might be a bug). Alternatively, you can use
ExternalContext extCtxt = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext();
String viewName = ((HttpServletRequest)extCtxt.getRequest()).getRequestURI(); //use this id as the key to store your views instead
The project I am working on is a mobile .NET CF based application. I have to implement the MVP pattern in it. I am now using OpenNETCF.IoC library and Services in it.
I have to refactor Windows Forms code to SmartParts.
I have a problem in implementing navigation scenario:
// Show Main menu
bodyWorkspace.Show(mainMenuView);
// Show First view based on user choice
bodyWorkspace.Show(firstView);
// In first view are some value(s) entered and these values should be passed to the second view
bodyWorkspace.Show(secondView); // How?
In Windows Forms logic this is implemented with variables:
var secondForm = new SecondForm();
secondForm.MyFormParameter = myFormParameter;
How can I reimplement this logic in MVP terms?
It greatly depends on your architecture, but this would be my suggestion:
First, ViewB does not need information in ViewA. It needs information either in the Model or a Presenter. ViewA and ViewB should get their info from the same place.
This could be done, as an example, by a service. This could look like this:
class ParameterService
{
public int MyParameter { get; set; }
}
class ViewA
{
void Foo()
{
// could also be done via injection - this is just a simple example
var svc = RootWorkItem.Services.Get<ParameterService>();
svc.MyParameter = 42;
}
}
class ViewB
{
void Bar()
{
// could also be done via injection - this is just a simple example
var svc = RootWorkItem.Services.Get<ParameterService>();
theParameter = svc.MyParameter;
}
}
Event Aggregation, also supported in the IoC framework you're using, could also work, where ViewA publishes an event that ViewB subscribes to. An example of this can be found here, but generally speaking you'll use the EventPublication and EventSubscription attributes (the former on an event in ViewA, the latter on a method in ViewB).
I'm using WPF, MVVM and Entity Framework in my current project.
To keep things simple, let's say I have a viewmodel for CRUD operations towards a list of materials (Solid woods).
My ViewModel's EF context (WTContext) is initialized through property injection, for instance:
SolidWoods_VM newView = new SolidWoods_VM();
newView.Context = new WTContext(SettingsManager.Instance.GetConnectionString());
This way I'm able to test this ViewModel:
SolidWoods_VM swVM = new SolidWoods_VM();
swVM.Context = new FakeWTContext();
Imagine that during a insert operation something goes wrong and the WTContext.SaveChanges() fails.
What is the best way to refresh the ViewModels context?
Create a new bool property in the viewmodel named ForTestingPurposes, and when the SaveChanges method fails:
try
{
Context.SaveChanges();
}
catch
{
if (!ForTestingPurposes)
{
Context = new WTContext(SettingsManager.Instance.GetConnectionString());
}
}
Send a message to the mainviewmodel for context reloading (through mediator pattern):
Mediator.Instance.NotifyColleagues<SolidWoods_VM>(MediatorMessages.NeedToUpdateMyContext, this);
(Yet, this way I'd still need the bool property)
3.A more elegant solution, without aditional properties, provided for you guys :)
Why not abstract the methods/properties you need on your data context onto an interface and then have an implementation of that that handles the exception.
//WARNING: written in SO window
public interface IDataSource
{
void SaveChanges();
//... and anything else you need ...
}
public class RealDataSource : IDataSource
{
private WTContext _context;
public void SaveChanges()
{
try { _context.SaveChanges(); }
catch
{
_context = new WTContext(/*...*/);
}
}
}
This way you can still implement a fake/mock data source but your view model class doesn't need to know anything about how the data is actually retrieved.
My opinion is that your best bet would be the message.
You need a way to indicate that the save went wrong, and it might not serve all consumers of the class to have the context regenerated. If you're binding to your VM in there, for example, resetting the context might have other UI consequences.
I have a page where you basically select a set of options (configuration), and then you go to a next page, where you do some stuff
Using the MVVM Light toolkit, I have a viewmodel that binds to the view of the first page. when the user hits a button, it redirects to another view, which would be the 2nd page
i.e.:
Page2Command = new DelegateCommand((obj) =>
Messenger.Default.Send<Uri>(new Uri("/DoStuffView.xaml", UriKind.Relative),
Common.CommonResources.GoToDoStuffRequest)) });
The problem is, the viewmodel for the 2nd view (the way that I see it) has a couple of parameters in the constructor, which are basically the dependencies on the configuration that was set on the first page.
i.e. :
public DoStuffViewModel(ICollection<Note> availableNotes, SoundMappers soundType)
{
}
The problem lies here.. How can I instantiate the viewmodel with this data that was dynamically selected by the user on the 1st page?.
I can't use the ViewModelLocator pattern that MVVM light provides, since those viewmodels don't have any dependencies, they are just by themselves (or they can retrieve data from a db, file or whatever, but they don't have any dynamic input data). I could do it through the view's constructor, instantiate there the viewmodel, and assign to the view's DataSource the newly created viewmodel, but I think that's not very nice to do.
suggestions?
As I see you send messsage using Messenger class so you are familiar with messaging in MVVM light. You have to define your own message type that should accept your parameters from page 1:
public class Page2ViewModelCreateMessage : MessageBase
{
public ICollection<Note> AvailableNotes{get;set;}
public SoundMappers SoundType{get;set;}
public Page2ViewModelCreateMessage ()
{
}
public Page2ViewModelCreateMessage(ICollection<Note> availableNotes, SoundMappers soundType)
{
this.AvailableNotes = availableNotes;
this.SoundType = soundType;
}
}
You have to send an Page2ViewModelCreateMessage instance with you parameters and send it on navigating:
var message = new Page2ViewModelCreateMessage(myAvailableNotes, mySoundType)
Messenger.Default.Send(message);
On Page2 you have to register for recieving message of type Page2ViewModelCreateMessage:
Messenger.Default.Register<Page2ViewModelCreateMessage>(this, OnPage2ViewModelCreateMessage);
..
public void OnPage2ViewModelCreateMessage(Page2ViewModelCreateMessage message)
{
var page2ViewModel = new Page2ViewModel(messsage.AvailableNotes, message.SoundType);
}
As you can see I have replace your DoStuffViewModel with Page2ViewModel to be more clear.
I hope this will help you.
NOTE:I dont guarantee that code will work as its written in notepad.
The way I do this is to have a central controller class that the ViewModels all know about, via an interface. I then set state into this before having the phone perform the navigation for me. Each ViewModel then interrogates this central class for the state it needs.
There are a number of benefits to this for me:
It allows me to have non-static ViewModels.
I can use Ninject to inject the concrete implementation of the controller class and have it scoped as a singleton.
Most importantly, when tombstoning, I only need to grab the current ViewModel and the controller class.
I ran into a problem with messaging where my ViewModel was the registered listener, because I was View First and not ViewModel First, I was forced to use static ViewModel references. Otherwise the ViewModel wasn't created in time to receive the message.
I use the controller class in conjunction with messages (it is basically the recipient of all messages around the UI) so in future if I refactor, I don't need to change much, just the recipients of the messages.
Come to think of it, the controller class is also my navigation sink - as I have some custom navigation code that skips back paging on certain pages etc.
Here's an example of my current set up:
public interface IController
{
Foo SelectedFoo { get; }
}
public class ViewModel
{
private IController _controller;
public ViewModel(IController controller)
{
_controller = controller;
}
private void LoadData()
{
// Using selected foo, we load the bars.
var bars = LoadBars(_controller.SelectedFoo);
}
}
You could use PhoneApplicationService dictionary to save data you need when navigation from first event, and parse it when you navigateTo second page. you can also use that data in your ViewModels.
Something like this:
PhoneApplicationService.Current.State["DatatFromFirstPage"] = data;
and when navigating to second page:
if (PhoneApplicationService.Current.State.ContainsKey("DatatFromFirstPage"))
{
var dataUsedOnSeconPage= PhoneApplicationService.Current.State["DatatFromFirstPage"];
}
you can use this data globally in entire app
I am working on a PRISM application where we drill down into the data (to get more details).
In my implementation I have a nested MVVM and when I navigate down the tree I would like to pass a model to a my newly created view.
As far as I know, currently PRISM allows to pass strings, but doesn't allow to pass objects. I would like to know what are the ways of overcoming this issue.
i usually use a service where i register the objects i want to be passed with a guid. these get stored in a hashtable and when navigating in prism i pass the guid as a parameter which can then be used to retrieve the object.
hope this makes sense to you!
I would use the OnNavigatedTo and OnNavigatedFrom methods to pass on the objects using the NavigationContext.
First derive the viewmodel from INavigationAware interface -
public class MyViewModel : INavigationAware
{ ...
You can then implement OnNavigatedFrom and set the object you want to pass as navigation context as follows -
void INavigationAware.OnNavigatedFrom(NavigationContext navigationContext)
{
SharedData data = new SharedData();
...
navigationContext.NavigationService.Region.Context = data;
}
and when you want to receive the data, add the following piece of code in the second view model -
void INavigationAware.OnNavigatedTo(NavigationContext navigationContext)
{
if (navigationContext.NavigationService.Region.Context != null)
{
if (navigationContext.NavigationService.Region.Context is SharedData)
{
SharedData data = (SharedData)navigationContext.NavigationService.Region.Context;
...
}
}
}
ps. mark this as answer if this helps.
PRISM supports supplying parameters:
var para = new NavigationParameters { { "SearchResult", result } };
_regionManager.RequestNavigate(ShellRegions.DockedRight, typeof(UI.SearchResultView).FullName, OnNavigationCompleted, para);
and implement the INavigationAware interface on your View, ViewModel or both.
you can also find details here: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg430861%28v=pandp.40%29.aspx