This might be a stupid question, but there are soo many combinations of approach (wpf, silverlight, winforms, html5) with incompatibility at mscorlib level, that I got completely lost.
I would like to be able to have a few windows mainly displaying realtime charts.
Probably with interaction among the windows (click in one, pop and display a new windows)
If it can be viewed on the web, perfect.
But I dont want to have to deal with another layer of nasty stuff for those features (like having to setup some "WCF" on a "IIS", kill me first)
In the end I was thinking of using FSharpChart on Silverlight.
Is that possible and/ or the best option ?
Thanks for your suggestions
update
I see that system.drawing which fsharpchart relies on is not silverlight supported..
Try Dynamic Data Display instead of FSharpChart. It runs on Silverlight: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/groups/science/tools/d3/dynamicdatadisplay.htm
It's not as F# Interactive friendly as FSharpChart, but you can easily wrap it in a handful of functions to make it more usable
Related
A while ago, I posted a question regarding switching between a Blend-authored GUI and a Visual Studio-authored one. I got it to work okay by adding my Blend project to my VS2008 project and then changing the Startup Application and recompiling. This would result in two applications that had completely different GUIs, yet used the exact same ViewModel and Model code. I was pretty happy with that.
Now that I've learned about the Laurent Bugnion's MVVM Light Toolkit, I would really like to leverage his efforts to make this process of supporting multiple GUIs for the same backend code possible. The question is, does the toolkit facilate this, or am I stuck doing it my previous way?
I've watched his video from MIX10 and have read some of the articles about it online. However, I've yet to see something that indicates that there is a clean way to allow a user to either dynamically switch GUIs on the fly by loading a different DLL. There are MVVM templates for VS2008 and Blend 3, but am I supposed to create both types of projects for my application and then reference specific files from my VS2008 solution?
UPDATE
I re-read some information on Laurent's site, and seemed to have forgotten that the whole point of the template was to allow the same solution to be opened in VS2008 and Blend. So anyhow, with this new perspective it looks like the templates are actually intended to use a single GUI, most likely designed entirely in Blend (with the convenience of debugging through VS2008), and then be able to use two different ViewModels -- one for design-time, and one for runtime.
So it seems to me like the answer to my question is that I want to use a combination of my previous solution, along with the MVVM Light Toolkit. The former will allow me to make multiple, distinct GUIs around my core code, while the latter will make designing fancy GUIs in Blend easier with the usage of a design-time ViewModel. Can anyone comment on this?
I checked your previous question and this one, and I had never really heard about switching projects to work in Blend and in Studio, and end up with two different UIs. I think this was not the intent of MSFT when they built Blend. Instead, the possibility to open the exact same project and code files in both IDEs (and all the discussions I had with the various teams at MSFT) hints that the intent was in fact to have one application only which can be edited in both environments.
I think that in the end, the goal is to have a variety of tools that you can use to edit your UI - XAML, Visual Studio designer, Blend. Depending on your role in the project (developer, designer, integrator) and depending on your ability with the tools, you can choose one or the other.
This doesn't mean that we never switch templates! Depending on the kind of application (for example between a SL4 desktop application or a WinPhone7 application), we use the same ViewModel (and below) code, but slap a different UI altogether on the files. I demoed how to do that in this video:
http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/kreekman/TechDays-2010-Understanding-the-Model-View-ViewModel-pattern/
This is the same talk I gave at MIX but extended by 15 minutes where I show how to reuse the ViewModel and model files, but use a completely different UI for WinPhone7.
Another application is switching templates when a window is resized (used very often in WPF, but also applicable to Silverlight) in order to show less details or a different layout for different screen sizes.
I hope that this reply doesn't confuse you :) and in fact, I'd love to hear your comments on that before we continue the discussion.
Cheers,
Laurent
I think MEFedMVVM would be a good candidate for this. It is simple and you can combine it with other frameworks.
Well we are considering to move from WinForms to WPF, what pitfalls does WPF have? And we got component one's flexgrid is there any wpf grid that has the same functions? one nice thing with it is that you can implement your own draw method for the cells... It can merge cells print and save to many file formats..
In general, WPF development is very different from WinForms. You should expect it will take some time to learn the new technology (or you might even need to hire new developers =)).
WPF approach is in many ways better than WinForms' one: check out styles and triggers, data binding, control templating, eventing model.
I would recommend you to start exploring it, but wait for the WPF 4 (and the boring MSDN page) to start the actual migration, because it is going to be even better and close some of the very annoying gaps.
First of all, WPF works pretty different from Windows Forms and likely requires a different approach on how to structure and design the application. At least it works way better if you do it the way it was conceived.
As for single Windows Forms controls, this shouldn't be a problem. There is a WindowsFormsHost which enables you to include Windows Forms controls in WPF.
The change from winforms to WPF is not a change I'd reccommend unless you have specific requirements which WPF fulfills - WPF is not intended to be a replacement, simply an alternative which is more suited towards graphically rich applications.
If you do have a specific requirement then you also might want to consider embedding WPF controls into winforms applications, rather than converting your entire application.
The learning curve is slow to get going, but once you get the idea it all starts to make sense. We have "Pro WPF in C# 2008" book floating round the office and its been a great help. Of course most things get googled to find an answer, but to find out why something is done the way it is this book was a great hope - to me anyway.
There are some annoying features but its still WPF is still quite new. Like most things, if you come across a problem someone has likely come across it before and there is an answer out there!!
J
Take a look here for a datagrid: http://wpf.codeplex.com/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=29117
The main hurdle with WPF is simply the huge amount of new stuff to learn (if you wish to use it properly). I'd think twice if you're on a tight schedule, but it might be worth it if you have 6 months to spare...
Speaking from just my experience, moving from Windows Forms to WPF took some re-learning. A few months into the transition most changes made total sense. WPF removes much of the frustration associated with using Windows Forms. It allows for a truly rich UI development experience especially when working in tandem with designers. I strongly recommend WPF Illustrated by Daniel Solis as a learning aid.
With reference to the grid, Syncfusion offers a WPF grid control that implements the features you have asked for. It implements true virtual mode with cell level customization, printing and export to multiple formats including Excel. Disclaimer - I work for Syncfusion.
i've been learning wpf for about a week now..
and i have a basic question:
From a business view and development view (out of your experience).. what can and what cant be done with wpf(capabilities) ..
please try to be illustrative..
examples of undesired answers:
"Fully functioning stand alone applications with alot of animation and Glittering images"
A second question:
if i build a XBAP UI for my application, can i make the UI "not show" in a browser!
if u r going to answer from tutorials/websites/books.. please dont copy paste them directly, try to write it in your own words...
You can host anything built to the Win32 GDI/USER API (WinForms, ActiveX controls) inside a WPF application, so even if you hit some limitation with an app that is mostly WPF, you can always host some old controls inside it.
And since 3.5 SP1 you can even host animated DirectX graphics pretty seamlessly as well (although WPF's 3D support provides its own much simpler ways of achieving the most commonly done things).
As for comparison, the major advantage of WPF over WinForms is the way it keeps closely to its own component-based model, so a very large proportion of controls are able to act as containers for other controls. Want to put a combo box in a menu item? Not sure why you would, but you can. More usefully, you can put a button in a list box (or tree view). These kinds of thing are not possible unless you implement every standard control from the ground up (which is what WPF does).
The disadvantages are probably temporary: it can be a little unstable on some machines (the rendering code seems vunerable to display driver incompatibility) but this gets better with each service pack. Also the text rendering has been heavily criticised - it goes a bit further with ClearType anti-aliasing than Windows normally does, so some people complain that it looks blurry.
(The reason these are likely to be temporary issues is that Microsoft's Visual Studio 2010 is adopting WPF. So they are now "eating their own dogfood".)
You can pretty much do anything in WPF that you'd need from a GUI app. But that's not the real benefit, IMHO.
One of the real benefits of WPF is development speed and simplicity, once you get past the learning curve (and there is a learning curve!)
The other major benefit, and probably the biggest one, is that it allows designers to work on the presentation, do lots of interactive things, all using a designer-friendly (friendlier, anyway) tool and not having to submit requests to the coders. Just by changing the .xaml, a designer can make an application look almost completely different, and add all kinds of behaviors (panels disappearing, expanding, all kinds of neat stuff). Without changing a line of code.
You can in theory do anything in WPF what you want. Compare it with a WinForms application. Is there anything that you can't build with that? Not really. The same goes for WPF. It's just that WPF is better suited for some things, like animations, video, graphics, etcetera. As it is xaml based, it is also better suited for databinding against XML for example.
See also this related question.
As for your second question, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean if you can show websites using WPF? Yes of course, just like WinForms.
Oh, in WPF some things are still not implemented. DataGridViews as popular example are only in the codeplex preview. YOu have alot of things like theExpander which work in a differnet way, and you can have a lot of problems with autosized content.
I also have a desktop application written in Windows Forms that is a middling size (a couple dozen major forms backed by 46 tables in the database). I'm thinking about rewriting the UI in WPF, but before I go there I was curious if there were any war stories about doing such a conversion.
I use LLBLGen to generate my low level data access objects, and I have a business logic layer above that. The forms are databound to the business logic objects, although the main form uses caching objects to minimize round trips on the more common navigation routes. The UI never speaks directly to the database: always through the UI -> business logic -> low level -> datastore path.
One control that I use heavily is the TreeView, which acts as a visual guide and short range navigation tool. The tree has been heavily customized with icons, highlight colors and it is the control I worry most about porting.
Is there a story that might convince me to go ahead and convert (or conversely, wait until Microsoft is closer to pulling the rug out from under Windows Forms)?
EDIT: I was asked in a comment what motivation for conversion I have. I have some concern about future proofing: I have 500,000 lines of code that were originally ASP and VBScript. We have been porting the functionality over time to ASP.NET and C#, but only as we make changes to the code. The upside is we have kept costs minimized, the downside is half the code remains ASP and VBScript. I'm concerned about a similar situation arising with Windows Forms applications.
Am I worried today about Windows Forms going away? Not even close to it... but the application is moving from ASP and VBScript to ASP.NET and C#, has nine years of history behind it, and probably won't be replaced this decade (instead, simply it will evolve). The desktop application is likewise a long term project with years of history.
For me, the WinForms vs. WPF decision is a simple one - if normal people are going to use it, the user interface can make the difference between a winner and a loser.
It is definitely a steep learning curve. But I have NEVER gotten done with a nice looking WPF application and said "Man, I should have used WinForms".
I'd say invest in the effort to make your UI better whenever possible for your customers, so yes to WPF if that's the case.
WPF has a ridiculously large learning curve. It will most likely require you to rewrite a lot more than you think for just changing the UI. Also, a lot of features that would make WPF nicer to use just aren't implemented or included in WPF yet. Unlike routeNpingme, I have written nice looking WPF applications and have said, "What a waste of time, I should have used Windows Forms and completed in 70% less time".
EDIT:
Also, unless Microsoft figures out a way to make WPF easier to learn, I don't see it catching on to the masses at all. WPF can do some very cool things, but a little effort to make it easy to understand instead of throwing stuff over the wall would have gone a long way. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see Microsoft drop WPF for something easier to work with in the not too distant future. So don't go changing your Windows Forms application just for the sake of changing it.
Pros:
Ridiculously easy data-binding (most of the time)
Ridiculously easy customization of look and feel
Cons:
Very steep learning curve
Some obvious bugs or issues. Similar to .NET 1.0 Windows Forms
Little or no tool support
In my opinion, WPF will definitely replace Windows Forms at some point. However, right now the tools are the main thing keeping it back. I disagree with Dunk that Microsoft will drop it for something else. Change it yes, but I think it's here to stay.
Should you change your application to use WPF now? No. Feel free to learn WPF but if your application works fine currently, then WPF won't give you anything extra. It just makes doing what is possible in Windows Forms much easier.
WPF is great. It is particularly good for extending controls like TreeView with customisations. You can add a string as an item in a TreeControl. You can also add a small panel containing an image and some text in various fonts and colours. Or you can add buttons, or anything you like. It has a completely general composability system. Same goes for ListBox, ComboBox, Button, etc. All their content or child items can be as simple as a string or as complex as a multipage document viewer with zoom buttons (if you want).
But the only way to find out is to try porting one of your forms. It shouldn't be too hard to make a WPF Window open from within your existing app. I started using WPF by making new GUI panels that were hosted inside a C++ Win32 application. Eventually it was so obvious that WPF was the way to go that we switched it around and made the outer shell WPF, with some ancient dialog boxes still implemented by the old C++ code where we couldn't be bothered to rewrite them (probably exactly what will happen with Visual Studio 2010).
Porting is a tough decision. So just some thoughts to help you decide.
WinForms is OK while you work by the rules and keep everything drawn as is. But even redrawing a border on some controls may require complex and precise work and skill, as you already know from tree customization. The same tasks can be done in a very elegant way in WPF.
Also, the data-binding in WPF saves me a lot of time. In the long term, you end up thinking about data-binding scenarios that could not be remotely possible in WinForms without special-case coding.
I do not even consider WinForms for new development -- there is no excuse for customization costs.
I have started introducing WPF elements within my WinForms application and so far have had a lot of success.
The application's main component is a grid control and I haven't yet found the text rendering of WPF sharp enough to present a table of important textual data.
But the application has several additional panels, and the majority of these are implemented using WPF. So, I'm going for a hybrid of WinForms and WPF via the ElementHost control.
I have found the flexibility of WPF to allow for a much more attractive and usable UI, and my users seem very happy with it. In my case, it's also been politically easier to introduce WPF one panel at a time.
WPF's main value to me is in the binding, not in the cooler UI. The worst WPF I've ever seen is when people use WPF just because it's newer, and put all the work in the code-behind, including not using binding. What you get is WinForms data management. So be sure you're going to use the wonderful binding when you do WPF.
I would port the OP's business logic to a business layer for ease of maintenance and conversion. I wouldn't port the WinForms to Xaml at all unless new Xaml functionality was needed, and preferably not until after the functionality was ported.
I just installed visio, and the installer almost seemed like it was built in flash.
The buttons kinda glowed when I hovered over them, and when I clicked on 'continue' the form phased out in a cool way.
I'm assuming it was built in WPF.
Anyhow, so are WPF more flash-like (visually speaking).
Do they have new properties where you can make forms phase out nicely/smoothly compared to winforms?
Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft. However, I don't work on Visio, WPF, CLR or Silverlight team. So, the following is my personal take on these technologies. If you want to quote me, don't do it implying it's the official Microsoft position. :-))
Update: Anything I say below about Flash/Flex/AIR might be wrong, as I have not worked with these technologies and what I know about them is based on what I read on the intertubes. :-) If you notice anything wrong, just shout in the comment and I'll correct it.
To the best of my knowledge, the Visio installer is not built with WPF. It's all unmanaged code; it's just people took a lot of care to make it really polished.
WPF is the new UI platform for building standalone applications for the Windows OS. It supports a declarative UI language - XAML, and related CLR types to program against. WPF is a different platform than WinForms, although it is possible to build applications that mix UI built with both. WPF supports a lot of things that WinForms does not, like bitmap effects, animations, control styling and so on and exposes them both in XAML or through code. Also, WPF relies heavily on vector graphics, as opposed to the pixel graphics in WinForms. In short, WPF is quite powerfull and allows building very snazzy UI. (Don't take my word for it, though, as I am biased; go check around for what people are saying about it or buiding with it. :-))
WPF and WinForms do not compete with Flash/Flex. WPF and WinForms are both UI frameworks for building standalone client applications. As far as I know, Flash/Flex are frameworks for building rich internet applications - RIA (though lately people started interpreting this abbreviation as rich interactive applications).
Adobe did come up with AIR about half a year (or maybe a year) ago, which allows building standalone client applications, so you could say that Adobe is trying to position Flash/Flex/AIR to compete with WPF. Of course, that's my take on it and I doubt Adobe's official positiong is anything like that.
If you want to compare particular MS technnologies with Flash/Flex, take a look at Silverlight - it's the MS RIA platform.
Silverlight is related to WPF in the sense that they share XAML and the corresponding CLR types. Silverlight supports only a subset of what WPF offers, though, as it is not targeting Windows OS only and thus is limited by the fact that it has to be portable.
Quick update to reflect the changes in the year since I've written the answer :-)
With Silverlight 3 shipped, SL and WPF are getting even closer and sharing bigger set of supported features. In addition, most of the new XAML controls are built for platform at the same time. Thus, SL/WPF are getting to a point of singularity...
Also, SL 3 supports out-of-browser applications. In that sense, SL is not only starting to compete with Flash/Flex, but it is also encroaching on AIR's turf.
And no, I still don't work on the WPF or Silverlight team. :-)
WPF is being used as a replacement for WinForms, and as a competitor to Flash in the form of Silverlight. WPF consists of an entirely new object model that sits on top of DirectX (at least the desktop version). You can create WPF windows, controls, etc, entirely using C# or another .Net language just like you can render WinForms. However, Microsoft has also created a markup language called XAML (eXensible Application Markup Language). Nodes in an XAML document (XML) map to objects in a similar fashion to the way ASP.Net maps to web controls. XAML typically exists in a .Net project alongside a code-behind style C# file (or VB.Net or whatever). The C# file interacts with the objects generated by the XAML. This is fairly consistent with the "graphics via markup, logic via code" model that Microsoft and others are pushing.
One of the overlooked features when discussing WPF is the completely awesome data-binding that Microsoft wrote for WPF. The new data binding framework is a quantum leap beyond Windows Forms 2.0 data-binding. Microsoft added a couple of new interfaces that make it much easier to make an object or collection emit data-biding events properly. They also provided a very rich set of data-binding classes. You can bind anything to just about anything else. You can bind one-way data to control, control to data, two-way control to data and back, control to control, etc.
Back on the graphics side of the house, WPF makes it fairly easy to make an existing control look like anything. WP lets you compose your own template for what a class of buttons should look like, or one button, or all buttons. Or radio buttons. Or labels. You get my drift. Imagine if CSS included the ability to define what an input button would look like using other HTML controls.
They also provide a number of layout controls. You can continue to use exact positioning like in WinForms, or you can leverage of variety of techniques to make your window act more like a web page that grows and shrinks with resizing, etc.
The downsides: It is too easy to create spectacular effects that crawl on slower machines. Some of the graphics do not take advantage of hardware of graphics cards, though Microsoft has incrementally improved support for this. I believe when 3.0 first came out drop shadows were rendered purely using software. I think 3.5 or 3.5 SP1 changed it so that WPF would utilize graphics hardware for the task. Microsoft has said they will continue to enhance WPF in this fashion.
WPF is .Net 3.0 and above, which runs on XP SP2, Vista, and Servers 03 & 08. So don't plan on deploying WPF to a customer with Win2k desktops.
Summary: If you are doing desktop programming in .Net, you should be doing it in WPF unless you are targeting Win2k. You can avoid the downsides of WPF, and there are many upsides. Microsoft will probably throw away WinForms in some future release, or at very least you will stop seeing new features, etc.
As far as Silverlight goes, the betas for SL 2.0 look good. I think that Silverlight will require some wide-spread adoption. Microsoft has already tried to get this going. The NBC Olypmics site used Silverlight, and Major League Baseball uses it for its MLB.tv product. As soon as Silverlight gets a good install base I think you will see the Microsoft side of the development world starting swinging away from Flash and to Silverlight.
Edit after using Silverlight 3 and MVVM:
I have moved away from WPF and am doing a lot of Silverlight 3 development. But I think my comments here will still apply to the WPF developer.
I have been using the MVVM pattern in my app (think MVC with a twist). The Microsoft Patterns and Practices team has released a set of libraries known as Prism that supports various aspects of MVVM. There are WPF and Silverlight versions. Take a look at MVVM and Prism if you are going to be doing WPF or Silverlight development.
You can do a lot of flash w/ Winforms, or with custom components. But if you want out-of-the-box bang-whizz availability, WPF is the way to go.
Yeah, I think the intention is to be flash-like, it seems to me that MS has set its sights on taking down Adobe.
The way I see it: WPF is to Flash as WinForms is to Flex. WPF has more emphasis on vectors and states than on programming.