I am familiar with Winforms GUI design: drag and drop controls on to the form, write code for the events, etc.
Using VS2010 is creating a WPF app this easy?
Learning XAML is a fairly involved.
stopping using code behind and events from your gui and going to MVVM is an eye opener.
So, if you find winform gui coding "natural", then going to wpf is not going to be overly easy.
It is however IMO well worth it. MVVM gives amazing benefits in terms of simplifying and reducing code.
If you need your controls to do something out of the norm, then XAML and styles are great for customizing your gui.
Yes, it is very easy once you have some experience with WPF. Like anything you'll need to get used to it, and learn the tricks.
For quick, simple, single form projects I think winforms will always be faster and easiest.
Related
I am planning to learn XAML. I wanted to know if I should first learn about WPF and then start XAML?
Please advice.
It depends on what your future plans are with XAML/WPF. If you want to get up and running and use it as quick as possible you might consider starting with XAML and WPF at the same time (but note that you can't learn or use WPF just be learning about XAML).
If you plan to work with XAML/WPF for a long time and you will have a lot of WPF projects ahead you probably should consider starting with "pure" WPF.
I belong to the latter camp and it helped me a lot to first get to know the WPF object model, rendering and layout system and then start with XAML, styles, templates etc. For me it made thinks easier to understand (and there is a lot to understand). I understood that XAML is just another way to represent/serialize a .NET object graph that is built as a layer on top.
This is also the way Charles Petzold's book is structured and I think it is the perfect book to start with when you want to get to know WPF really well.
Its not a good question but WPF applications are is built on XAML. I started learning from WPFTUTORIAL
You will find that you will are likely to learn both at the same time. That said, XAML is a designed to be a mark-up language and is used for several technologies, e.g. WPF and WCF et. al.
As #bitbonk mentions, several books on the subject first give you an introduction to WPF (Dependency Objects, Visual Tree and Logical Tree, Controls, etc) before showing any XAML markup.
Whatever you do make sure that your first 2 or 3 applications are throw away apps (not production code). I have seen way too many developers code themselves into a hole when learning to code with WPF. I would recommend studying the MVVM pattern as well. This is critical to building stable WPF applications.
Here are some blog posts I have written that may be of some assistance.
http://tsells.wordpress.com/category/mvvm/
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 doing WPF applications with the MVVM pattern using Visual Studio, coding C# and XAML mostly by hand.
Now I've gotten up to speed with Expression Blend so that I can click together WPF applications quickly just using the GUI, which is very nice, much more control of the layout than fiddling around with all the XAML elements 80% of your time.
But it seems that my applications in Expression Blend are simpler and necessarily coupled, using events that are handled in the code behind, etc.
I find it hard to imagine how I would go from this simpler approach of Expression Blend to a decoupled MVVM application with Views, ViewModels, routed events and commands, etc. other than to just take my whole project into Visual Studio and rearrange it to the point that I couldn't really edit it visually anymore in Blend, but would be back to using Blend to create little pieces of XAML that I paste into Visual Studio.
For those of you who are working with more complex applications with Expression Blend, what are your strategies for keeping your projects decoupled in an MVVM way, yet at the same time structured "in the Expression Blend way" (where you can still see and edit whole parts of your application in a way that makes sense visually) so that you can continue to edit them in the Blend GUI as they scale?
I've been using Blend first and foremost as a rapid-prototyping tool. For this purpose, I really like it. In particular, I find it very helpful when I'm not sure how to set things up to get the layout/behavior that I want.
I rarely edit my main project files directly in Blend. I find it creates markup that is unnecessarily complex or verbose. Also, as I become more familiar with WPF/XAML, I find myself using Blend less and less.
I have been using Blend for the UI of my projects since version 1. Being that my goal is to fully integrate the designer to the project, I have plowed through whatever gets in the way of this goal. While not being aware of MVVM for some time now, I naturally arrived at the same conclusion, and have been making ViewModels without knowing there was a pattern for them. Now with the help of others that are working towards MVVM, it's getting better all the time. I have now developed 3 applications with rich UI and functionality where all the UI was done in Blend.
Read Josh Smith's MSDN article, look at Jason Dolinger's work, and Karl Shifflett's work to mention just a few.
Look closely at using ICommand, INotifyPropertyChanged, the ObservableCollections.
Also, look for how you can manipulate controls from your ViewModel. As an example, there is ICollectionView. Assume that you have a list of animals, and you have a set of types that you want to filter them by (birds, mammals, etc.)
By using ICommand and ICollectionView, you could expose enough control where a designer could construct a listbox to show the animals, and a menu to show the filter list. There is enough functionality in ICollectionView to know what the current selection is, and if you had ICommand-based commands for "SortByBird", "SortByMammal", etc then when the designer made the menu, it (assuming the window's context was your ViewModel for this window) would supply the designer with the proper options to bind to.
I am currently working with another team at my company explaining how my projects have been set up, and they are responding positively to the new role of the designer using Blend.
I have not been able to successfully use Blend end to end for that.
I find in the general case, it's faster to edit xaml by hand in VS (exception would include anything with non-standard brushes for example). Blend is very click-happy, and it's not really fast to top it off.
Another area where Blend is really useful is creating styles/templates from existing controls.
Other than that, I'm not sold yet. Its capabilities drop when using code-instantiated datacontexts so it's no help there, and it tends to generate useless markup, static sizes and such, which I really don't like.
Blend is great for giving you an idea about how things can be done, but the xaml it makes is terrible and tightly coupled. As you learn the xaml side of things better you'll find it's much faster to just write the xaml than use Blend. Until you get to that point you can make your changes in Blend but then you should refactor the xaml it creates to make it less tightly coupled and take out the extraneous UI elements.
I'm a little late to this party, but hope that someone can still respond. I've yet to find a search result that outlines the process for drawing a line between the designer and programmer. The first part of it is MVVM so there isn't any coupling between the GUI and the underlying "business logic", and I'm working hard on learning that right now. The other part that I haven't seen anyone write about is, how do you actually go about designing a project in Blend so that the developer can basically give you a GUI DLL of sorts, and then your application's GUI magically changes?
Here's what I'm looking for -- the developer writes his code as usual, and also writes a very basic GUI that proves everything works as expected. Meanwhile, the designer is creating his cool little GUI with all of the usability features people have come to expect. Now, the developer can run his application with his GUI, but then can also switch to the designer's GUI on the fly.
I guess if it can't be done on the fly, does that mean in the ideal case that the developer would have his VS solution include the XAML from the Blend solution? Then in App.xaml just reference a different start file?
This question already exists:
Closed 14 years ago.
DUPE: When is Windows Forms the correct choice vs WPF?
We have to decide these days whether or not to go with WPF as a platform for building our next generation of our product.
Personally I am a little afraid of using this technology especially because of performance and because it's not mature (I am not sure about the quality of the UI editors such as Blend).
Personally, I absolutely adore WPF.
It requires a fundamental shift in thinking from Winforms. Winforms you drag and drop stuff on to a form. That gets you 80% of the way really quickly and easily, but when you need to move outside of the things that WinForms explicitly covers, you enter a world of pain.
In WPF, first thing you do is turn off the visual editor. The code for your UI goes from an ugly mess to something beautiful. Also, it is remarkably powerful and flexible, once you get the hang of it the things you can do are absolutely amazing.
The downside to WPF is that it is more heavy then WinForms, and the learning curve is relatively huge. However, it is the way of the future, and unless it is a trivial app you are making, I would choose WPF hands down.
If you don't need a very glossy UI with animations and so on, I see little reason to jump to WPF... just yet.
If you are worried about performance, you should check these MSDN pages:
Windows Presentation Foundation Performance
My guess is that WPF is even outperforming Winforms as long as there is appropriate DirectX hardware because rendering can be done by the GPU directly then.
Considering MS is building their next version of VS with a WPF based code editor, I find it hard to find support for WPF not being 'mature' or having performance issues.
I would say if you are able to migrate anyway, you might as well upgrade to increase the longevity of your code base. If your code is written properly in Winforms, it should not be very difficult to start moving this forward into WPF.
I started about 10 weeks ago teaching myself WPF, and then in the last 2 weeks I have actually written an application in WPF.
I came from ASP.NET and I love WPF. I love the XAML markup, it just makes more sense than dragging items over and making sure they are in the right place in a WinForm.
The styling is easier in WPF, you can quickly make a border with rounded corners.
Using Expression Blend you can design a really nice interface with animation.
I developed a WPF app on Vista (home), and XP (work) and they both look really nice.
I have been very pleased with WPF and would not go back to WinForms.
My sense would be that if you are happy with the look and feel of winforms, then stick with it. If you think you will be doing any visual customization, then go WPF. But then I have been working with winforms for a long time and WPF very little. If I was starting out, I would probably focus on learning WPF since it really is much more flexible
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.