I am having difficulties in making TabControl run flawlessly in MVVM architecture. Currently what I am doing is having TabControl's ItemsSource property bound to ObservableCollection Screens property. Each time I want to add new tab, I create adequate ViewModel, add it to Screens, and throuh data templates adequate View will be shown.
Problems:
1) it seems that desctructor for my ViewModels are not fired until complete application closes. I am not sure if Data templates are the cause of this. When I remove ViewModel from Screens collection, it should be available for GC, since all I did was added it to Screens collection, which showed the View, and then when command to close the view was issued, I removed from collection. After that I tried to force Gc.Collect, but still dctor fires only on application close. I am not sure why is this happening...
1) in some data structures it is not possible to bind to ViewModel's property through ElementName, so one way around is to use RelativeSource binding. However, this creates lots of binding exceptions when element (ex View) is being closed. Similar problem to mine is described here:
How to avoid Binding Error when parent is removed
In my case TargetNullValue and FallbackValue do not help, and the only way around I have found is to have ViewModel as StaticResource. Problem with this approach is that when using Screens collection and data templates to connect Views and ViewModels, you cannot create viewmodels the usual way:
<UserControl.Resources>
<vm:SomeViewModel x:Key="someViewModel" />
</UserCpntrol.Resources>
So, is there an alternative approach to using TabControl in MVVM scenario, or I am doing something wrong here?
Regarding the destructor part, should not use the destructor. It is the recommended approach to implement the IDisposable interface instead. This will help you to automate the cleanupd of your objects and lets the GC do the dirty work for you:
Use this method to close or release unmanaged resources such as files,
streams, and handles held by an instance of the class that implements
this interface. By convention, this method is used for all tasks
associated with freeing resources held by an object, or preparing an
object for reuse.
My favorite MVVM tutorial uses a Tabcontrol as a central UI control: WPF Apps With The Model-View-ViewModel Design Pattern. This may give you hints to a nice and working approach.
Related
I am looking for a truly decoupled way of supporting navigation in a Silverlight application using MVVM. I am trying to accomplish more of a "purist" implementation of the pattern where the UI is completely separated from the ViewModels so that the application can actually run entirely without a UI. To do this, I need to support navigation without UI concerns.
I have several ideas how to accomplish this (with Messaging, etc) but haven't come up with a good way of "mapping" the View to the ViewModel so that the UI can show the appropriate View when the ViewModel is "displayed". I recall coming across an article some time ago that described a solution to this very problem but can't seem to locate it online anymore.
Does anyone know how to find this article or have any experience solving this problem?
So here's my somewhat long-winded description what we ended up doing:
First, we decided to use the built-in Page Navigation framework. We had multiple reasons but since it is built-in and is also the navigation framework du jour in Windows 8, we opted to try this approach.
I should also mention that we use MVVM Light and MEF in our applications. (This comes into play below.)
To make this work, we created an application Shell (UserControl) that contains the Frame control. The Shell's DataContext is set to an instance of the ShellViewModel which exposes a single CurrentPage property (of type String). We then bind the Frame's Source property to CurrentPage. This approach is similar to Rachel's app-level ViewModel.
The ShellViewModel registers with the Messenger to receive CurrentPageChanged messages. When the message is received, the CurrentPage property is updated, the PropertyChanged event raised and the UI updated. The message originates from the NavigationService (which implements INavigationService and is injected/imported using MEF).
The NavigationService exposes a NavigateTo method which accepts the string name of the ViewModel representing the destination. This name matches the contract name applied to the ViewModel when exported (using MEF) and used to lookup the instance using our ViewModelLocator.
In the NavigateTo method, we use the ViewModelLocator to retrieve the ViewModel instance, call Deactivate on the current ViewModel (if one), call Activate on the new ViewModel then send the CurrentPageChanged message with the name of the new view as a parameter. Activate/Deactivate are helper methods on the ViewModels that allow us to perform any necessary tasks when the ViewModel is navigated to or from.
This appears to be working well and gives us a very MVVM-ish implementation with all navigation isolated from our ViewModels via the INavigationService and messaging.
The only down-side right now is that while we are using string constants in code to represent the ViewModel names, we are still hard-coding the strings in the Views to set the DataContext. I will be looking into a way to set the DataContext automatically as part of the navigation 'tooling'.
I should mention that this approach was parsed together from a number of sources, including (but not limited to) Rachel and the following links:
http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/eladkatz/archive/2011/01/25/adapting-silverlight-navigation-to-mvvm.aspx
http://blog.galasoft.ch/archive/2011/01/06/navigation-in-a-wp7-application-with-mvvm-light.aspx
http://www.geoffhudik.com/tech/2010/10/10/another-wp7-navigation-approach-with-mvvm.html
Usually I have a ViewModel for the entire app, and it contains the CurrentPage and all navigation event handling.
On the View side, I use a ContentControl with it's Content bound to CurrentPage, and use a DataTemplateSelector to determine which View to display for which ViewModel
There's an example here if you're interested, although it uses DataTemplates instead of a DataTemplateSelector.
I'm trying to get to grips with different patterns (MVP, MVVM etc) and find one that suits my needs. After all my reading I'm still not sure. Hopefully someone can shed some light on this for me.
At the moment I have a WPF View which implements an interface ICustomView. This interface is injected into my Presenter. The presenter then is responsible for subscribing to data, managing subscriptions etc. When the data is returned to the Presenter it calls various methods against the Model (an IObservable collection of CustomBusinessObjects). It does this using the interface ICustomView since the IObservable is a property of the Model.
The problem I see with this is the Model is too coupled with the View. Also the Presenter is deciding which methods to call against the Model. At the moment the View consists of a WinForms grid and this is exposed by the ICustomView allowing the Presenter to call methods against the View. However it adds to the coupling of Presenter and View which makes it difficult to swap out this WinForms grid for a WPF grid or chart etc
I am considering making the Model an entirely seperate entity lets say IModel with a single method ProcessUpdate(string topic, IMessage payload). This would move logic away from the presenter into the Model. It would also mean more than one view could share the same model. The custom model could have additional interfaces for specific customisations but the Presenter would only need to know about IModel.
Does this sound like a reasonable idea? Am I missing something here?
Any advice appreciated.
Thanks
I would recommend switching from MVP to MVVM because you are using WPF. I would only use MVP if you were using ASP.Net or WinForms.
That being said, your MVVM objects would be:
Model: Simple data object. It should not contain any functionality such as Save or Edit, but can have Validation logic.
View: Your UI. I usually do mine as a DataTemplate for the ViewModel class type. It should bind to your ViewModel's Properties and Commands.
ViewModel: The piece that combines the two. Any data displayed in the View should bind to a property in the ViewModel. Any commands in your View such as Button Clicks should also point to methods in the ViewModel.
For example, when a user hits a GetCustomer button on the View, the ViewModel should receive the command, go and get the CustomerModel, and expose it's Properties for the View to bind to. When the user hits Save the ViewModel should validate that the Model is valid, and then execute the Save code using its CustomerModel property.
Personally, when using WPF I prefer to use a WPF datagrid, and bind it to a datacontext in the MVVM pattern. I think the first thing you need to get rid of is the WinForms grid (it will be almost impossible to decouple your model/view as long as you are using a WinForms grid.
I would do research on a few different things.
The MVVM pattern
WPF DataGrid
Binding the DataGrid to a DataContext
Once you get to that point, all you will need to do is update your datacontext, and your view will update with it.
As far as i understand ViewModel communicates with View via databinding. But how can one create in ViewModel UIElements for View.
Thanks.
The ViewModel should not create any UIElements directly because the ViewModel should not depend on the View. The ViewModel provides data that the View (i.e. the UIElements) can bind against.
If your question is geared toward how to bootstrap a View, there are two approaches: View-first and ViewModel-first. In the former you create the View first and then create and bind against the ViewModel. In the latter you make the ViewModel create the View (through interfaces). Read more about it here.
If your question is geared toward composing the view of UIElements, this is done through DataBinding and the use of DataTemplates and ControlTemplates.
MVVM is a loose design pattern, it is accectable to put code in the code behind as long as it purely concerned with the UI only, just keep in mind that it may be harder to unit test.
And strictly speaking the ViewModel does not communicate to the View, there is no reference to the View in the ViewModel, rather the View reads data from the ViewModel and executes commands on the ViewModel.
The problem is dynamic component creation needs as I see.
You can put a Container object on a view then on modelView create UIElements and Bind this UIElement collection to Container's Content Property. But I think its not a good practice. This approach breaks Model and View seperation.So you need to avoid of dynamic component creation.
MVVM approach is a bit diffrent. Sometimes force us using tricks. i.e. Instead of using ListBox's MemberPath property you define a ItemTemplate and put ButtonBase elements on the template for supporting Commanding! Or you Extend ListBox and Support Commanding.
My offer instead of dynamic object creation. Use DataTemplates and change the binded members on ModelView,then the view will be automatically created for you.For complex senario's it could be hard. We do them all for the sake of keeping MVVM structure.
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.
In the MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel) pattern should the ViewModel reference the view. I would think that it should not. But how should the following scenario be handeled? I have a view that has a tab control as the main container, the viewmodel for this view implements a command to add a new tab to the tab control. The easy way would be to allow the viewmodel to reference the view and then in the command implementation to just programmatically add the new tab to the tabcontrol in the view. This just seems wrong. Should I somehow bind the tabcontrol to the viewmodel and then implement a data/control-template to add the new tabs. I hope this makes some kind of sense to somebody :)
In "pure" MVVM, the ViewModel shouldn't really reference the View. It's often convenient, however, to provide some form of interface in the View whereby the ViewModel can interact with it.
However, I've found that I almost never do that anymore. The alternative approach is to use some form of attached property or blend behavior within your View, and bind it to your ViewModel properties. This allows you to keep the View logic 100% within the View. In addition, by creating a behavior for this, you create a reusable type that can be used to handle this in every ViewModel->View interaction. I strongly prefer this approach over having any View logic within the ViewModel.
In order to demonstrate this technique, I wrote a sample for the Expression Code Gallery called WindowCloseBehavior. It demonstrates how you can use a Behavior within the View bound to properties in the ViewModel to handle controlling a Window's life-cycle, including preventing it from being closed, etc.
Reed and Dan covered the general approach but in reference to your specific case, TabControl is an ItemsControl and so can bind its ItemsSource to a data collection in your ViewModel representing the set of tabs to display. The UI for each type of tab can then be represented by a DataTemplate specific to the data type of an item (either using DataType or a DataTemplateSelector). You can then add or remove data items as needed from your VM and have the tabs update automatically without the VM knowing anything about the TabControl.
I find that it's often a helpful compromise to expose an interface on the View that handles View-specific functionality. This is a good way to handle things that are awkward to accomplish with pure binding, such as instructing the form to close, opening a file dialog (though this often gets put in its own service interface) or interacting with controls not designed well for data binding (such as the example you provided.)
Using an interface still keeps the View and ViewModel largely decoupled and enables you to mock the specific IView during testing.
One of us is missing something obvious. Your tab control is an ItemsControl. You should bind the ItemsSource of your tab control to an ovservable collection in your view model. When you handle the command in your view model to add a tab, you simply add a new element to this collection and, voila, you've added a new tab to the control.