WPF dependency property precedence & reference type Default Values - wpf

Question

If I create a custom control like this:
public class MyControl : ContentControl
{
public static readonly DependencyProperty ItemsProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register(
"Items",
typeof(ObservableCollection<object>),
typeof(MyControl),
new PropertyMetadata(null));
public MyControl()
{
// Setup a default value to empty collection
// so users of MyControl can call MyControl.Items.Add()
Items = new ObservableCollection<object>();
}
public ObservableCollection<object> Items
{
get { return (ObservableCollection<object>)GetValue(ItemsProperty); }
set { SetValue(ItemsProperty, value); }
}
}
And then allow the user to bind to it in Xaml like this:
<DataTemplate>
<MyControl Items="{Binding ItemsOnViewModel}"/>
</DataTemplate>
Then the binding never works! This is due to the Dependency Property Precedence, which puts CLR Set values above Template bindings!
So, I understand why this isn't working, but I wonder if there is a solution. Is it possible to provide a default value of ItemsProperty to new ObservableCollection for lazy consumers of MyControl that just want to add Items programmatically, while allowing MVVM power-users of My Control to bind to the same property via a DataTemplate?
This is for Silverlight & WPF. DynamicResource setter in a style seemed like a solution but that won't work for Silverlight :(
Update:
I can confirm SetCurrentValue(ItemsProperty, new ObservableCollection<object>()); does exactly what I want - in WPF. It writes the default value, but it can be overridden by template-bindings. Can anyone suggest a Silverlight equivalent? Easier said than done! :s
Another Update:
Apparently you can simulate SetCurrentValue in .NET3.5 using value coercion, and you can simulate value coercion in Silverlight using these techniques. Perhaps there is a (long-winded) workaround here.
SetCurrentValue workaround for .NET3.5 using Value Coercion
Value Coercion workaround for Silverlight

Answer 1

Can't you just specify the default property of the dependency property:
public static readonly DependencyProperty ItemsProperty = DependencyProperty.Register(
"Items",
typeof(ObservableCollection<object>),
typeof(CaseDetailControl),
new PropertyMetadata(new ObservableCollection<object>()));
or am I missing what you are after?
Edit:
ah... in that case how about checking for null on the getter?:
public ObservableCollection<object> Items
{
get
{
if ((ObservableCollection<object>)GetValue(ItemsProperty) == null)
{
this.SetValue(ItemsProperty, new ObservableCollection<object>());
}
return (ObservableCollection<object>)GetValue(ItemsProperty);
}
set
{
this.SetValue(ItemsProperty, value);
}
}

Answer 2

When ObservableCollection properties misbehave, I try throwing out assignments to that property. I find that the references don't translate right and bindings get lost, somehow. As a result, I avoid actually setting ObservableCollection properties (preferring, instead, to clear the existing property and add elements to it). This becomes really sloppy with a DependencyProperty because you're going to call your getter multiple times in your setter. You might want to consider using INotifyPropertyChanged instead. Anyway, here's what it'd look like:
EDIT: Blatantly stole the getter from SteveL's answer. I reworked it a touch so that you only have a single call to GetValue, is all. Good work around.
public ObservableCollection<object> Items
{
get
{
ObservableCollection<object> coll = (ObservableCollection<object>)GetValue(ItemsProperty);
if (coll == null)
{
coll = new ObservableCollection<object>();
this.SetValue(ItemsProperty, coll);
}
return coll;
}
set
{
ObservableCollection<object> coll = Items;
coll.Clear();
foreach(var item in value)
coll.Add(item);
}
}
Note that this is depending on your default to set correctly. That means changing the static ItemsProperty default to be a new ObservableCollection of the correct type (i.e. new PropertyMetadata(new ObservableCollection()). You'll also have to remove that setter in the constructor. And note, I've no idea if that'll actually work. If not, you'll want to move to using INotifyPropertyChanged for sure...