I'm a fresher with WPF, MVVM. Now, I have been investigating MVVM Light. I got some confused. I appreciate any help from all of you. Thanks in advance for taking a look at this post.
Can we absolutely remove code behind of View (such as: Invoking InitializeComponent() somewhere inside .xaml --> Does not need view.xaml.cs anymore in some simple case).
I have many views insight my project, how many locator is necessary?
I intend to make separate locator for each view. And I wonder that if I register all locators in app.xml, are all of views initialized and registered right after user run the application? If Yes, Is it not good for performance?
Main question:
I have a scenario:
I have many forms: such as :
MainForm: which is the 1st form invoked by application.
ImportForm: which is invoked when User click Import (from MainForm)
Assumption that: I did finish all stuff related to binding (such as button Import --> RelayCommand(OnImport))
What is the best practice for me to implement this scenario?
1. Just implement to init and show ImportForm like below:
public void OnImport()
{
ImportForm importForm = new ImportForm();
importForm.ShowDialog();
}
It's simple, but I wonder if this way follow the MVVM's paradigm?
So, I did some researching and do another way like:
public void OnImport()
{
//// Just send message
Messenger.Default.Send(
new NotificationMessage(this, "OnImport"));
}
In Code Behind: MainForm.xaml.cs
public MainForm()
{
InitializeComponent();
Messenger.Default.Register<NotificationMessage>(this, (nm) =>
{
if (nm.Sender == this.DataContext)
{
if (nm.Notification == "OnImport")
{
ImportForm importForm = new ImportForm();
importForm.ShowDialog();
}
}
});
}
By this way, I must write some code inside code behind --> Is it a problem?
Both above solutions can finish mentioned scenario correctly, but I confused which one is better or is there any actually right solution out there?
Thanks again for your patience with the long question.
No, you cannot. InitializeComponent() paints UI on the screen. The purpose of MVVM is to separate logic that does not related to View and store it in a ViewModel. It does not tend or aim to remove code-behind.
It depends on you. You can create one Locator for all ViewModels or one Locator per one ViewModel. Anyway, I found that Locator does not scale well and hard to manage in a larger project. It creates dependency between View, Locators and ViewModels. I personal prefer to use DI framework instead of Locator even if it is a small project.
You can do both, depends on your requirement. (a) If clicking the button on the main form does nothing more than show a dialog then I would use Click event because it is View related. It has nothing to do with any logic, so keep it in the code behind is the best solution for me. (b) By the way, if clicking the button does something, for example, connect to a database then show a dialog if a condition is true. In this case, I would use Messenger to keep View and ViewModel separate from each other.
Related
My question is what is the ideal way to initialize child window in WPF, MVVM way?
I have a WPF window , let's call it as ParentWindow having its view Model class - ParentWindowViewModel. On click of a button on the ParentWindow UI , I launch a new WPF window - ChildWindow like below
ChildWindow r = new ChildWindow ();
r.ShowDialog();
r.WindowStartupLocation = WindowStartupLocation.CenterScreen;
Now, the ChildWindow has its own viewModel like - ChildWindowViewModel. The Child Window has the datacontext set in its xaml as
<Window.DataContext>
<viewModel:ChildWindowViewModel/>
</Window.DataContext>
On Click of button in the ParentWindow, When i Launch the Child Window, I need to pass certain values to the Child Window, which will be used to initialize the Child Window. Without these values the child window cannot be initialized.Every time I click the button to Launch the child window, the values being passed to child window will differ based on some other selected items in the Parent Window.
I would do something like this (without error checking):
in ParentWindow.xaml.cs
private void Some_Event_In_Parent_Window()
{
ParentWindowViewModel pvm = DataContext as ParentWindowViewModel;
ChildWindow cw = new ChildWindow(pvm.Element1, pvm.Element2);
}
int ChildWindow.xaml.cs
public ChildWindow(bool elem1, string elem2)
{
InitializeComponents();
DataContext = new ChildWindowViewModel(elem1, elem2);
}
If you are dealing with minimal elements that need to be transferred between windows/VM's, and it is mainly about sending some form of "state" or "value", then there isnt too much issue with initializing the Viewmodel in the code behind. Remember that the <viewmodel:ChildWindowViewModel/> is equivalent to DataContext = new ChildWindowViewModel() in your code behind. While yes, you can create spaghetti code, or confusing dependencies by not adhering to patterns; you can also over engineer the crap of something that did not require the effort and can be just as confusing.
I find that there is an obsession with keeping your code behind empty (i have the same obsession). Remember, that the Code behind is there for a reason, and you CAN use it. Sometimes it isnt worth over-complicating your code base by implementing some big pattern if you have a single one off requirement that can be handled in code behind with some added comments.
Aside from Event Handlers, I utilize the Code Behind for these main use cases:
There is an adjustment needed to the UI that is too complicated to handle in the XAML alone. Example: I need a weird string concatenation and logic of some inputted text fields.
There is some minimal state or data needed to be transferred between Views. (Like your requirement)
There is some sort of logic that needs to happen that is UI specific and not related to the underlying data or ViewModel. (This is rare, and almost always a small one off).
In terms of "is this ideal" for MVVM; it depends on your definition of ideal.
Can this be handled by some other design pattern? Probably...? But is it worth it.
Does implementing said pattern add bloat or overhead that only solves a small problem? Maybe. That is for you to decide.
Are you going to be repeating this implementation more than once? If so you may have some bad design to rethink.
Does implementing this solution of using Code behind solve your issue in a speedy way, that is moderately maintainable and readable? If so, then I wouldnt see a problem.
Ideal is not always defined by rules. It is also specific to your needs and requirements.
It isnt always easy to determine where your use case should be handled. View, ViewModel, maybe a Service, or a Singleton state class.
If your use case is this one window, Code behind is fine (In my opinion). If you are doing this for 20 windows, you may want a Service to maintain the state somehow. Think of it more - if your code is SOLID and DRY
Seriously, it seems like every time I want to make my UI elements talk to each other, I end up coding a new, custom, IValueConverter :(. Someone tell me that I'm doing it wrong, please!
Examples:
I wanted a button to be enabled only if my textbox contained a valid URI. Great, time to code up a UriIsValidConverter!
Oh oops, I also wanted to disable it while I'm processing something. I guess now I need to code up a UriIsValidAndBoolIsFalseMultiConverter!
I want to display a list of files in a certain directory (specified by a textbox) inside a listbox. I guess I need a DirectoryPathToFileList converter!
Oh hey, I want icons for each of those files in the listview. Time for a FileInfoToBitmap converter!
I want my status to be red if my status-string contains "Error", and green otherwise. Yay, I get to code up a StatusStringToSolidColorBrushConverter!
I'm really thinking this isn't that much better than the old Windows Forms method of just wiring up everything manually using TextChanged events (or whatever). Which I guess is still an option. Is that what people actually do, perhaps, and I'm trying too hard to make everything fit into the databinding paradigm?
So yeah, please tell me if this is really how WPF coding is---or if I'm doing it wrong, and if so, what I should be doing.
Your approach is perfectly valid (though I would use a multibinding for the second example, rather than a such a specialised converter), though by placing all your logic into the XAML you are producing very high coupling between the way the application looks and the way that it behaves, because of this you may want to look into the MVVM pattern to separate those things out.
Under the MVVM pattern your XAML (the view) just contains very simple data bindings into a ViewModel which handles all the logic and updates the view through the INotifyPropertyChanged interface. The code for your third example may look something like:
public class DirectoryManagerViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private string _directory;
public string Directory
{
get { reutrn _directory; }
set
{
if (_directory != value)
{
_directory = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Directory");
if (IsValidDirectory(value))
{
PopulateFiles();
}
}
}
}
public ObservableCollection<FileViewModel> Files { get; private set; }
private bool IsValidDirectory(string directory)
{
//return if the directory exists etc.
}
private bool PopulateFiles()
{
//Populate Files with files in directory
}
}
Where FileViewModel is another view model which contains the name and the icon for a file.
The advantage of this approach is that the ViewModels can be reused with other views and other technologies such as ASP.NET or Winforms so you are not locked into the WPF stack. (alos if you work in an environment where there are designers responsible for the look and developers responsible for the behaviour, this helps define those boundaries)
At the end of the day though this logic does need to go somewhere and while there are better and worse ways to architect your application you are still going to be writing code that takes a string and converts it into a series of filenames and icons somewhere.
First, you might want to start by reading about the Model-View-ViewModel pattern (MVVM). Josh Smith had a fantastic article in MSDN Magazine recently. MVVM and WPF go perfectly together. Done right, you won't need IValueConverters so much. The way that you are going about it now is causing a very tight coupling between your visualization and your application actions. MVVM is designed to decouple these elements.
In this context, your view model will track state for you. Your button will be enabled if the CanExecute method on a certain ICommand in your view model returns true. This same concept can handle disabling the button when processing something.
You want to display a list of files in a certain directory that is specified inside a listbox? Have a DirectoryViewModel view model that will handle providing the list of files to the view by binding to the view model. The display of the files can be specified with a DataTemplate specified in XAML with no code behind. This same concept can handle providing the icons to the view whose display can be specified in the template.
You want your status to be red if a status message contains "Error" and green otherwise? Let a view model handle determining the state and let the view bind to that state and now you only need an IStateConverter to convert the state to red or green appropriately (this is one of many ways to handle this problem in the MVVM context).
Get in the habit of keep data and state separate from your view and your applications will be loosely coupled, easier to design and maintain, and easier to test.
Don't know if you are wrong, just making it a lot harder than it has to be!
I use MVVM, so where you are writing customer converters, I provide a bindable property on the view model that tells the view what to do. For example:
To display a list of files, I provide a collection that contains that list.
If I want icons the object in that collection has a icon property
If I want a status to be red or green I provide a StatusColorbrush property.
By moving this logic into the view model, I get:
much simpler Xaml.
can test my view logic without the view.
This approach uses one of the strong points of WPF, it's binding capabilities.
Hopefully quite a simple one, having my first try at WPF with Prism V2 using M-V-VM and so far finding everything pretty awsome. My Shell is pretty simple, Ribbon Control at the Top, DataGrid of Help desk tickets on the left, and a TabControl on the right.
When a user opens the selected ticket from the datagrid, I want the Ticket to open as a Tab on the Tab Control. I know in order to do that I need to add and then activate the View to the region using the RegionManager. But doing this from the ViewModel doesn't seem correct to me, although I could do it using DI (DepenecyInjection) it still rings alarms in my head about giving the ViewModel some knowledge about a View.
To Add to this, different modules will also be adding other views (Contact, Client etc) into the TabControl, I'd like to use DataTemplates to get the TabControl to display the View Correctly, can anyone give me any pointers for this as well.
Many Thanks
Ben
Full answers please, not just links. It's what StackOverflow is for!
MVVM + Services = Ultimate Power!
A service is just an interface that's well known and is registered in your IOC container. When the ViewModel needs to do something outside of itself, like say open a tabbed document, it uses the service. Then the service is implemented as needed for the particular program.
For example:
public interface IDocumentService
{
void OpenDocument(IViewModel viewModel);
}
internal class DocumentService:IDocumentService
{
public void OpenDocument(IViewModel viewModel)
{
// Implement code to select the View for the ViewModel,
// and add it to your TabControl.
}
}
{
// Somewhere in your ViewModel...
// Make sure you can get the IDocumentService
IDocumentService docService = ioc.Get<IDocumentService>();
docService.OpenDocument(new TicketViewModel());
}
Commands are the way to do this - you'll send a command to yourself, called "RequestBringTicketIntoView"; it will bubble up to the Window, where you handle it. Read Josh Smith's article:
http://joshsmithonwpf.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/understanding-routed-commands/
I have an application that need to open a dialog from a button where the user enters some information.
At the moment I do it like this (which works fine)
The button click generates a command in the ViewModel.
The ViewModel raises an event which the Controller listens to.
The Controller works out the details of the new window (i.e. View, ViewModel & model) and opens it (ShowDialog)
When the window is closed the Controller adds the result to the eventargs and returns to the ViewModel
The ViewModel passes the information to the Model.
There are a lot of steps but they all make sense and there is not much typing.
The code looks like this (the window asks for the user's name)
ViewModel:
AskUserNameCommand = DelegateCommand(AskUserNameExecute);
...
public event EventHandler<AskUserEventArgs> AskUserName;
void AskUserNameExecute(object arg) {
var e = new AskUserNameEventArgs();
AskUserName(this, e);
mModel.SetUserName(e.UserName);
}
Controller:
mViewModel.AskUserName += (sender,e) => {
var view = container.Resolve<IAskUserNameView>();
var model = container.Resolve<IAskUserNameModel>();
var viewmodel = container.Resolve<IAskUserNameViewModel>(view, model);
if (dlg.ShowDialog() ?? false)
e.UserName = model.UserName;
}
My question is how the horizontal communication works in the MVVM pattern.
Somehow it seems wrong to let the controller be involved in the data transfer between the models.
I have looked at the mediator pattern to let the models communicate directly. Don't like that idea since it makes the model depending on implemetations details of the GUI. (i.e. if the dialog is replaced with a textbox, the model need to change)
I don't like most of the current suggestions for one reason or another, so I thought I would link to a nearly identical question with answers I do like:
Open File Dialog MVVM
Specifically the answer by Cameron MacFarland is exactly what I do. A service provided via an interface to provide IO and/or user interaction is the way to go here, for the following reasons:
It is testable
It abstracts away the implementation of any dialogs so that your strategy for handling these types of things can be changed without affecting constituent code
Does not rely on any communication patterns. A lot of suggestions you see out there rely on a mediator, like the Event Aggregator. These solutions rely on implementing two-way communication with partners on the other side of the mediator, which is both hard to implement and a very loose contract.
ViewModels remain autonomous. I, like you, don't feel right given communication between the controller and the ViewModel. The ViewModel should remain autonomous if for no other reason that this eases testability.
Hope this helps.
i use this approach for dialogs with mvvm.
all i have do do now is call the following from my viewmodel to work with a dialog.
var result = this.uiDialogService.ShowDialog("Dialogwindow title goes here", dialogwindowVM);
I have come across similar problems. Here is how I have solved them, and why I have done what I have done.
My solution:
My MainWindowViewModel has a property of type ModalViewModelBase called Modal.
If my code needs a certain view to be modal, it puts a reference to it in this property. The MainWindowView watches this property through the INotifyPropertyChanged mechanism. If Modal is set to some VM, the MainWindowView class will take the VM and put it in a ModalView window where the appropriate UserControl will be shown through the magic of DataTemplates, the window is shown using ShowDialog. ModalViewModelBase has a property for DialogResult and a property called IsFinished. When IsFinished is set to true by the modal VM, the view closes.
I also have some special tricks for doing interactive things like this from backgroundworker threads that want to ask the user for input.
My reasoning:
The principle of modal views is that other views are disabled, while the modal is shown. This is a part of the logic of the View that is essentially lookless. That's why I have a property for it in the MainWindowViewModel. It I were to take it further, I should make every other property or command for all other VM's in the Main VM throw exceptions, while in modal mode, but I feel this to be excessive.
The View mechanism of actually denying the user any other actions, does not have to be performed with a popup window and showdialog, it could be that you put the modal view in the existing window, but disable all others, or some other thing. This view-related logic belongs in the view itself. (That a typical designer can't code for this logic, seems a secondary concern. We all need help some times.)
So that's how I have done it. I offer it only as a suggestion, there is probably other ways of thinking about it, and I hope you get more replies too.
I've used EventAggregator from Prism v2 in similar scenarios. Good thing about prims is that, you don't have to use entire framework in your MVVM application. You can extract EventAggregator functionality and use it along with your current setup.
You might have a look at this MVVM article. It describes how a controller can communicate with the ViewModel:
http://waf.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Model-View-ViewModel%20Pattern&ProjectName=waf
I have an MVVM application. In one of the ViewModels is the 'FindFilesCommand' which populates an ObservableCollection. I then implement a 'RemoveFilesCommand' in the same ViewModel. This command then brings up a window to get some more user input.
Where/what is the best way to do this whilst keeping with the MVVM paradigm? Somehow
doing:
new WhateverWindow( ).Show( )
in the ViewModel seems wrong.
Cheers,
Steve
I personally look at this scenario as one where the main window view model wants to surface a task for the end user to complete.
It should be responsible for creating the task, and initializing it. The view should be responsible for creating and showing the child window, and using the task as the newly instantiated window's view model.
The task can be canceled or committed. It raises a notification when it is completed.
The window uses the notification to close itself. The parent view model uses the notification to do additional work once the task has committed if there is followup work.
I believe this is as close to the natural/intuitive thing people do with their code-behind approach, but refactored to split the UI-independent concerns into a view model, without introducing additional conceptual overhead such as services etc.
I have an implementation of this for Silverlight. See http://www.nikhilk.net/ViewModel-Dialogs-Task-Pattern.aspx for more details... I'd love to hear comments/further suggestions on this.
In the Southridge realty example of Jaime Rodriguez and Karl Shifflet, they are creating the window in the viewmodel, more specifically in the execute part of a bound command:
protected void OnShowDetails ( object param )
{
// DetailsWindow window = new DetailsWindow();
ListingDetailsWindow window = new ListingDetailsWindow();
window.DataContext = new ListingDetailsViewModel ( param as Listing, this.CurrentProfile ) ;
ViewManager.Current.ShowWindow(window, true);
}
Here is the link:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jaimer/archive/2009/02/10/m-v-vm-training-day-sample-application-and-decks.aspx
I guess thats not of a big problem. After all, the Viewmodel acts as the 'glue' between the view and the business layer/data layer, so imho it's normal to be coupled to the View (UI)...
Onyx (http://www.codeplex.com/wpfonyx) will provide a fairly nice solution for this. As an example, look at the ICommonDialogProvider service, which can be used from a ViewModel like this:
ICommonFileDialogProvider provider = this.View.GetService<ICommonDialogProvider>();
IOpenFileDialog openDialog = provider.CreateOpenFileDialog();
// configure the IOpenFileDialog here... removed for brevity
openDialog.ShowDialog();
This is very similar to using the concrete OpenFileDialog, but is fully testable. The amount of decoupling you really need would be an implementation detail for you. For instance, in your case you may want a service that entirely hides the fact that you are using a dialog. Something along the lines of:
public interface IRemoveFiles
{
string[] GetFilesToRemove();
}
IRemoveFiles removeFiles = this.View.GetService<IRemoveFiles>();
string[] files = removeFiles.GetFilesToRemove();
You then have to ensure the View has an implementation for the IRemoveFiles service, for which there's several options available to you.
Onyx isn't ready for release yet, but the code is fully working and usable at the very least as a reference point. I hope to release stabilize the V1 interface very shortly, and will release as soon as we have decent documentation and samples.
I have run into this issue with MVVM as well. My first thought is to try to find a way to not use the dialog. Using WPF it is a lot easier to come up with a slicker way to do things than with a dialog.
When that is not possible, the best option seems to be to have the ViewModel call a Shared class to get the info from the user. The ViewModel should be completely unaware that a dialog is being shown.
So, as a simple example, if you needed the user to confirm a deletion, the ViewModel could call DialogHelper.ConfirmDeletion(), which would return a boolean of whether the user said yes or no. The actual showing of the dialog would be done in the Helper class.
For more advanced dialogs, returning lots of data, the helper method should return an object with all the info from the dialog in it.
I agree it is not the smoothest fit with the rest of MVVM, but I haven't found any better examples yet.
I'd have to say, Services are the way to go here.
The service interface provides a way of returning the data. Then the actual implementation of that service can show a dialog or whatever to get the information needed in the interface.
That way to test this you can mock the service interface in your tests, and the ViewModel is none the wiser. As far as the ViewModel is concerned, it asked a service for some information and it received what it needed.
What we are doing is somethng like that, what is described here:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WPF/DialogBehavior.aspx?msg=3439968#xx3439968xx
The ViewModel has a property that is called ConfirmDeletionViewModel. As soon as I set the Property the Behavior opens the dialog (modal or not) and uses the ConfirmDeletionViewModel. In addition I am passing a delegate that is executed when the user wants to close the dialog. This is basically a delegate that sets the ConfirmDeletionViewModel property to null.
For Dialogs of this sort. I define it as a nested class of the FindFilesCommand. If the basic dialog used among many commands I define it in a module accessible to those commands and have the command configure the dialog accordingly.
The command objects are enough to show how the dialog is interacting with the rest of the software. In my own software the Command objects reside in their own libraries so dialog are hidden from the rest of the system.
To do anything fancier is overkill in my opinion. In addition trying to keep it at the highest level often involving creating a lot of extra interfaces and registration methods. It is a lot of coding for little gain.
Like with any framework slavish devotion will lead you down some strange alleyways. You need to use judgment to see if there are other techniques to use when you get a bad code smell. Again in my opinion dialogs should be tightly bound and defined next to the command that use them. That way five years later I can come back to that section of the code and see everything that command is dealing with.
Again in the few instances that a dialog is useful to multiple commands I define it in a module common to all of them. However in my software maybe 1 out of 20 dialogs is like this. The main exception being the file open/save dialog. If a dialog is used by dozens of commands then I would go the full route of defining a interface, creating a form to implement that interface and registering that form.
If Localization for international use is important to your application you will need to make sure you account for that with this scheme as all the forms are not in one module.