I am in midway implementing an UndoRedo container for a view model that contains nested properties and ObservableCollection. I am using PostSharp for Exception Handling in the application and thought of reusing it for implementing an undo-redo engine as stated in the article:
http://www.postsharp.net/aspects/examples/undoredo
Although the above article is for windowsForms which had binding limitations, I have made the engine to adopt the rich binding wpf platform and it is working nice for single properties.
I am wondering how to extend the UndoableAttribute to take care of Nested properties and collections. My tries and googling skills have proved futile till now. Any idea, or pointer to some article would be appreciated.
It really depends on what you are after. Providing undo functionality on object graphs can be quite complicated task. You would have to state more specifically what you want to achieve.
Generally you could instrument all nested objects and write some specialized collections to store all changes in some kind of global container.
We are working on providing such a functionality as part of future release of PostSharp.Patterns libraries – it should make to 3.1 or 3.2.
Related
I'd like to create a Silverlight app using WCF Ria Services and the MVVM design pattern.
The main page of the app will consist of a "shell" and a large number (10s or 100s) of objects of different look (shape/size/properties) linked to each other (forming a sort of graph).
These items need to be mouse-draggable and their current position/state needs to be saved to the back-end database.
I feel that the best way to achieve this would be to have a small ViewModel and View for each item displayed, put all the important properties into the ViewModel and then somehow display all these Views in the main "shell".
However, I don't know how exactly this could be achieved. I considered using MVVM Light, but didn't find any example that would show something similar.
Can anybody point me to some examples or ideas about how this could be done?
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" :)
MVVM is not designed to manage graphic intensive situation like the one you describe. It is a glue for stitching together high-level concepts in a flexible manner. With MVVM you are adding overheads that will impact performance (e.g. binding uses reflection behind the scenes). The more objects involved, the greater the impact.
The best starting point I can suggest is to imagine what you need from a 3rd party control (e.g. a custom control/container) and, if one does not actually exist already, build it as if it were a third party custom control.
You will find in practice that custom controls are seldom based on MVVM, for performance reasons if not just because "they often don't need it". They may well expose MVVM compatible properties for the external interface, but not for the low-level internals.
MVVM is a relatively high-level technique. Do not feel you have to implement it on everything.
Following MVVM do the next:
Model - create model object which will be responsible for fetching and persistence coordinates of the shapes on the screen;
View Model - one view model which will initiate fetching and persistance model objects;
View - in your case, it's a place where you do most of your work. Create custom control based on ItemsControl with Canvas panel. Custom control should pass collection of the model objects in ItemsSource, allow to drag and drop containers and call the view model command when user drops container in some place
Have a look at the Telerik controls, specifically radTileView, this seems to have the functionality that your looking for. They also have a persistance framework that should allow you to save the position of the tiles back to you database.
While adding extra functionality to the main view I have in my application, I've realized that the amount of code will soon become a problem (currently around 600 lines of code in my viewmodel and I still have plenty to add).
I've been looking around for articles on how to split/design your view into smaller components, but I haven't found a satisfying solution. One person suggested using child viewmodels but that presented with other problems (dependency between the viewmodels).
I've thought of using user controls, but there is nothing on the View that I use on other Views so it kind of defeats the purpose of user controls.
What is a correct approach in this situation?
Thanks,
Adrian
If you want to split a view into component parts, then you need to do view composition. If you are building an MVVM app, then you should really be using an MVVM framework. Something like Caliburn.Micro makes view composition incredibly easy.
There doesn't necessarily have to be dependencies between the view models, they should only know about what they need in order to produce their view. This could be a subset of the business object that the parent view model contains. As the parent view model will have references to all of the child view models, it can pass the relevant parts of the business object to them at the point of their construction.
I would agree with using Caliburn Micro.
However, to play devil's advocate you could split out your ViewModel File into separate files (same class name) and use the partial keyword before the class keyword. Its generally tidier and one step-away (non-breaking precursor) from breaking-up into separate classes.
I also agree Caliburn.Micro is a good solution for splitting your application in smaller components.
In Caliburn.Micro the communication between viewmodels is based on the Event aggregator pattern.
This makes a loose coupling between viewmodels
Splitting up is not ideal.
It looks as if the Caliburn toolkit focuses on events, whereas my application largely relies on ICommand implementations.
To me, the first encounter with Caliburn.Micro has been unsatisfactory.
The setup appeared to be tailored to VS2010 - which sounded promissing to me - because I do have VS2010 pro. But I got lost in the setup's of Silverlight.
Compared to toolkits like Prism it lacks the ease of an start.
It just takes to much time to switch now.
I use my own MVVM paradigm, it is less abstract than the Caliburn, it integrates multilanguage support everywhere, and it just faces one acceptable problem of some sources getting too big because of the nature of the Binding/DataContext paradigm.
For this problem I accept that "partial class" is a solution - even though I know there is a more elegant solution available.
In the heat of my work, I cannot change to another toolkit.
So I gently wait for Microsoft to allow for more flexibility around that Binding/DataContext paradigm.
It may be the case that Caliburn shows more intelligence allocating a viewmodel to some item. Does it ? (I think it does.)
What might be another option is to define a custom (xaml useable) object that triggers a custom allocator which control is to be allocated to which viewmodel. How about that ?
Back in January 2009, Dino Esposito published an article on MSDN titled "Managing Dynamic Content Delivery In Silverlight". We are considering using an approach like this for an upcoming project and were wondering if anyone had any advice on whether this is a good approach. Are there any traps or pitfalls we should look out for? We currently use Prism and would need to look at how the two would live happily together.
Yes! This approach, in my opinion, is what makes Silverlight and WPF so incredibly powerful. I have done this in the past and it is AMAZING how well it works. Data binding and ViewModels make it especially easy to do. Even better is if you use the dynamic capabilities of C# 4.0 to push dynamic properties into your ViewModel that your View can bind to. In other words, you can push down dynamic values that your dynamic views can bind to.
When you get it all working, it is beautiful.
A bit of self promotion here, but my ViewModel base class has a lot of support for this type of dynamic data binding approach.
As far as doing this with Prism, you can take advantage of the modularity Prism that prisim was built with. You can override the RegionRegistry, for example, with one of your own that knows how to create the dynamic view given the region name.
Beautiful, Beautiful stuff here.
This question already has answers here:
Why use MVVM? [closed]
(13 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
Why we go for MVVM over MVC or MVP while dealing with WPF?
What extra benefit we get by using this?
Edit:
To be honest , today I had an interview and I have been asked this question. I answered like INotifyPropertyChanged , ICommand,IValue Convertor.. but he was not satisfied. Henceforth I have put up this question
Thanks in advance
I'll point you to a particularly useful video by Jason Dolinger.
Coming from a WinForms world, implementing any MVX style pattern seemed like more hassle than it was worth but after working with WPF for a couple of years now, I can honestly say that I wouldn't consider anything less. The whole paradigm is supported out-of-the-box.
First off, the key benefit is enabling true separation between the view and model. What that means in real terms is that if/when your model needs to change, it can without the view needing to and vice-versa.
Secondly, while your model may contain all the data you might need in your view, you may want to abstract that data in such a way that your model doesn't support. For example, say your model contains a date property. In the model it can exist solely as a DateTime object but your view might want to present it in a completely different way. Without the viewmodel you'd either have to duplicate the property in the model to support the view or modify the property which could seriously obfuscate the 'model'.
You can also use a viewmodel to aggregate parts of your model that exist in separate classes/libraries to facilitate a more fluent interface for the view to deal with. It's very unlikely that you'll want to work with data in your code in the same way that a user will want to or will want that data presented to them.
On top of that, you get support for automatic two-way data binding between the view and viewmodel.
There really is a whole bunch of extra stuff that I could bang on about but Jason say's it far better that I could so my advice is watch the video. After a few days of working like this, you'll wonder how you ever got by without it.
Good luck.
These are mine specific to MVVM
Increases the "Blendability" of your views (ability to use Expression Blend to design views). This enables a separation of responsibilities on teams that are lucky enough to have a designer and a programmer... each can work independent of the other.
"Lookless" view logic. Views are agnostic from the code that runs behind them, enabling the same view logic to be reused across multiple views or have a view easily retooled or replaced. Seperates concerns between "behavior" and "style".
No duplicated code to update views. In code-behind you will see a lot of calls to "myLabel.Text = newValue" sprinkled everywhere. With MVVM you can be assured the view is updated appropriately just by setting the underlying property and all view side-effects thereof.
Testability. Since your logic is completely agnostic of your view (no "myLabel.Text" references), unit testing is made easy. You can test the behavior of a ViewModel without involving its view. This also enabled test-driven development of view behavior, which is almost impossible using code-behind.
The other two patterns are really sort of separate in terms of the concerns they address. You can use MVVM with MVP and MVC (most good samples out there do some form of this).
In fact, MVP (w/ a Passive View, rather than a Supervising Controller) is really just a variant of MVVM, in my opinion.
WPF has better databinding than any other UI framework, which MVVM would be unruly without
MVVM provides unit testability and excellent view-agnosticism, which make it a good thing to use
Baked in support for ICommand and INotifyPropertyChanged are the two biggest benefits. Using MVVM makes it really easy to wire up the commands and plug data into the WPF UI. Things just work.
I personnaly see MVVM not as a benefit, but as an obligation for those who want to use WPF cool features.
WPF is very very heavily built with data binding at the core, to enable separation of UI from Model. But the way data binding is technically done in WPF is somewhat special, as it's tied to classes like:
DependencyProperty
INotifyPropertyChanged
ObservableCollection
Because of this you just can't really write a model the way you want using standard .NET technology. For example, the WPF TreeView is almost impossible to use w/o using data binding and templates. You just can't populate it simply like you would from a generic model in Winforms for example. It must be bound to a hierarchical model using ObservableCollection to represent a node's children.
So let's say V represents the XAML code and it's code-behind counterpart (so it's tied to WPF as a technology), and let's say M represents your model (so it's not tied to WPF UI technology in anyway).
Well, you'll never have this working properly under WPF with only these V & M.
You must add something between the two. Something that's WPF-compatible and understands your model. Something that speaks DependencyProperty, ObservableCollection and INotifyPropertyChanged. That's what's called VM.
As a side note, an alternative to MVVM is to build a V & M (w/o VM plumbing) combination with M being WPF-compatible but still with a reasonable UI independency. Historically, ObservableCollection was in the WindowsBase.dll assembly (that was shipped with WPF), so it really looked weird to bind a generic model to something tied to a UI technology. It's been moved back to System.dll since. Even then, it's sometimes hard to keep a pure VM model w/o tweaking the M specifically for WPF...
The ability of XAML code to databind, as well as the existance of triggers will break the MVP and MVC Patterns.
WPF's view model oriented way of doing things makes it very tempting to just use business objects in the UI. Have you seen any issues with this? Why or why wouldn't you do this?
The guidance from Microsoft's product teams (e.g., that's what the Blend team is using) is the Model-View-ViewModel architecture, a variant of the popular MVC pattern. A good starting point is http://blogs.msdn.com/johngossman/archive/2005/10/08/478683.aspx. There are also good articles by Dr. WPF on this topic.
Essentially, they advocate to create a ViewModel layer which uses binding-friendly business objects, such as ObservableCollection and the like.
Also, if you might eventually move to Silverlight 2, you might want to keep the business objects out of the UI layer so you can swap out UI technology (until WPF and Silverlight become source-code compatible).
I guess I see it in a different light. I try to keep as much out of the UI as possible so I can use whichever UI presentation I need (ie. web, WPF, WinForms). The more business logic in the presentation layer, the more you may have to rewrite later if you migrate towards a different UI.
It's not a problem having business objects in the UI, as long as all you're doing is viewing them. In other words, if you want to change the properties of one, or delete one, or create a new one, you should be sending a message to the controller, presenter, or whatever to do that; and the results should then be updated in the view.
What you shouldn't do is use the ToString method of your objects (or any other methods or properties on your objects) to affect how they'll appear in the view. You should use DataTemplates to represent the view of your objects. If you need a more complex representation, you can use an IValueConverter to change the object into its visual representation.
Not being a WPF guru, I can't be sure, but the usual reason for separating your M, V and C is so you can test the controller independent of the view, and the other way around.
Nothing stopping you, of course, but it should be a lot more testable (ie, unit tests) if it's separate. The MVP pattern, which is usually the one that MS promotes, is more geared around the presenter (ie, your WPF form) having more control, and thats fine too....
Depending on your application architecture or the on the way you are planning to reuse your components and objects, you can choose a certain degree of independence from the user interface (in this case WPF).
Here is a sample of my experience:
I've worked with WPF just a little, on
a relatively small project, where the
business layer was already defined,
and we just needed to create a user
interface. Of course, the interface
had defined it's own rules and objects
that it was working with, and because
the application was defined just for
UX we have chosen to create our own
specific objects, mostly by extending
DependencyObject (mainly for Data
Binding purposes).
Some people may argue that it's not ok
to use dependency objects because they
not are serializable (actually they
are - to XAML), they bring a
dependency to WPF (the
System.Windows namespace), and some
other arguments. Also,
DependencyObjects support other
options, like attached properties
and dependency properties. Others
might like to use for example
INotifyPropertyChanged if it
makes sense, and others might say that
all of these patterns don't belong in
other layer than UI.
(If you want to learn more there are
some good WPF data binding
articles in the MSDN library,
including best practices for
perfomance and for user interface)
It's kind of bad that Microsoft has chosen to add some of the goodies to the System.Windows namespace, instead of, for example, to the System.ComponentModel where in my opinion they might have been more useful (by providing all of these important patterns not only to WPF but to the .NET Framework).
Of course this is just the beginning and many of us know that the thing will be evolving to the right direction in the end. (With the risk of going off-topic: Take silverlight 2.0 framework for example. It was a rushed release, with some of the objects in the WPF model missing and some not in their natural place.)
In the end, everything depends on you, your programming style, your architectural decisions and your knowledge of the technology.
If it seems more natural to do it in a way, than by the book, think why you should and why should you not before taking any decision!