I am learning on to the concepts of WPF such as data binding, commands, resources, element bindings, styles etc, which use markup extensions extensively, and i am having problem understanding the meaning behind the Markup classes, as they are being used beyond what i understand they should be used for. So here are a few points i need to clear:
(all code snippets are from Pro WPF in C# 2010 book)
What is the meaning and use of Static extension? It can be used to
declare static resources, which can be declared in as
, but this xaml confuses me:
<Button ... Foreground="{x:Static SystemColors.ActiveCaptionBrush}" >
In {x:Static SystemColors.ActiveCaptionBrush}, what is the role
of static here, and what will change if i use x:Dynamic here? The
book says this xaml is equivalent to this codebehind:
cmdAnswer.Foreground = SystemColors.ActiveCaptionBrush;
This means that if i have a class with static properties, i should
be able to use something like this:
<Button ... Foreground="{x:Static MyClass.SomeStaticProperty}" >
But it didn't work, despite i had created a class, i tried using
local:Static (referring to the local namespace) but VisualStudio
didn't allow me to use it. What is the proper method of achieving
this?
What is the meaning of Binding (beyond obvious meaning, what is
happening when i am binding)? It is used for resource binding, or
data or element binding. I was able to understand element binding,
but binding to objects that are not elements caused problems. For
example:
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Source={x:Static SystemFonts.IconFontFamily},
Path=Source}"></TextBlock>
Here it is binding to the text to the SystemFonts.IconFontFamily
property, what is the use of x:static in this case, and how to bind
it to a property in a class that i have created? Also how to update
the text property of the textfield if the value of the binding
target changes? Due to binding, it should update by itself, is this
the case?
All the examples in the book make use of SystemFonts.IconFontFamily,
none that i have seen explains the use of such binding, and how to
do it for the classes that i create? Some help in this regard is
needed. I want to ask more about binding, but i will do so in a
separate question about binding only.
Finally, recommend a book or resource that explains what is
happening, instead of how to do this and that?
Answers....
1)
You said ...
... This means that if i have a class with static properties, i should be
able to use something like this:
<Button ... Foreground="{x:Static MyClass.SomeStaticProperty}" >
But it didn't work, despite i had created a class, i tried using
local:Static (referring to the local namespace) but VisualStudio
didn't allow me to use it. What is the proper method of achieving
this?
Well your trial attempt was correct but it was incorrect to what term you have applied that namespace token to.... local namespace token applies to the class that is declared under it so...
<Button ... Foreground="{x:Static local:MyClass.SomeStaticProperty}" >
Should work just fine provided that SomeStaticProperty is a valid Brush.
In this example, the whole markup was internally equivalent to Binding as ...
Binding.Source = {x:Type local:MyClass}
Binding.Path = SomeStaticProperty.
2)
You had an example...
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Source={x:Static SystemFonts.IconFontFamily},
Path=Source}">
</TextBlock>
So use the same equivalence from example 1 and apply it to this example...
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Source={x:Type SystemFonts},
Path=IconFontFamily.Source}">
</TextBlock>
3)
I learned this whole thing from MSDN... I dont think we can have any other legitimate source than that.
Related
According to the x:Reference Markup Extension page on MSDN, x:Reference
References an instance that is declared elsewhere in XAML markup. The reference refers to an element's x:Name.
According to the Binding.ElementName Property page on MSDN, ElementName
The value of the Name property or x:Name Directive of the element of interest.
Looking back at the remarks section on the first page:
x:Reference and WPF
In WPF and XAML 2006, element references are addressed by the framework-level feature of ElementName binding. For most WPF applications and scenarios, ElementName binding should still be used. Exceptions to this general guidance might include cases where there are data context or other scoping considerations that make data binding impractical and where markup compilation is not involved.
For completeness, here is part of the remarks section on the ElementName page:
This property is useful when you want to bind to the property of another element in your application. For example, if you want to use a Slider to control the height of another control in your application, or if you want to bind the Content of your control to the SelectedValue property of your ListBox control.
Now, while I am fully aware of when and how to use the ElementName property, I don't fully understand the difference between it and the x:Reference markup extension. Can anybody please explain this and in particular, expand on the last sentence shown from the x:Reference remarks section?:
Exceptions to this general guidance might include cases where there are data context or other scoping considerations that make data binding impractical and where markup compilation is not involved.
Basically like you said those two do almost the same. However there are small differences under the hood.
{x:Reference ...} -> returns just a reference of an object it doesn't create that "bridge" between two properties like binding would do. Behind all that a service is being used that searches for the given name in a specific scope which is usually the window itself.
{Binding ElementName="..." } -> first of all it creates that binding object then it searches for the object name but not by using the same technique under the hood as x:Reference. The search algorithm moves up and/or down in VisualTree to find the desired element. Therefore a functional VisualTree is always needed. As example when used inside a Non-UiElement, it won't work. In the end the Binding stays and does its daily bread.
This won't work:
<StackPanel>
<Button x:name="bttn1" Visibility="Hidden">Click me</Button>
<DataGrid>
<DataGrid.Columns>
<DataGridTextColumn Visibility="{Binding ElementName=bttn1, Path=DataContext.Visibility}"/>
....
This works:
<StackPanel>
<Button x:name="bttn1" Visibility="Hidden">Click me</Button>
<DataGrid>
<DataGrid.Columns>
<DataGridTextColumn Visibility="{Binding Source={x:Reference bttn1}, Path=DataContext.Visibility}"/>
....
Sort of like that :)
ElementName is platform specific. I.e. it may or may not be present based on which platform you're using. x:Reference elevates that concept to a XAML native feature. Thus any platform that supports XAML supports x:Reference.
First, I searched long and hard to try to find the answer to this. I resorted to here for expert help with this problem.
I am currently reading a book about programming for the Windows Phone 7. I am currently learning about Data Binding (and doing pretty good too). I have come across a question about the formatting of DataBinding in WPF, mostly about the function of StaticResource.
In the following code you are about to see, there is a slider and a text block. The text block is binded to the slider so that when the slider is moved, the text block's value changes. A class has been created, TruncationConverter, and has can be called in XAML with the keyword "truncate". It is declared in phone:ApplicationPage.Resources.
So, this is right
<TextBlock Name="txtblk"
Text="{Binding ElementName=slider,
Path=Value,
Converter={StaticResource truncate}}"
And this is wrong
<TextBlock Name="txtblk"
Text="{Binding ElementName=slider,
Path=Value,
Converter=truncate}"
The book never really went in to explaining why one must put StaticResource before the function.
So, the question is, why do you need to put StaticResource before the call? What does it do, what is its function? Why is there an error when you don't put StaticResource before truncate.
Thanks in advance!
The constructor for the Converter class uses a markup extension in order to work. The markup extension requires that the object be previously defined in the object graph, and this is was done when you assigned your converter class a key. When the Xaml parser sees StaticResource (or DynamicResource) it starts looking upward in the object graph until the value is found. At runtime, an instance of the class is created and used to do your conversions. Once an instance of your converter has been created, WPF uses it for the life time of your application, hence 'Static'.
The 'StaticResource' may seem extraneous or redundant because a converter cannot be a DynamicResource, but such are the syntax rules of Xaml.
Basically placing StaticResource is telling it to find the external property likely in a ResourceDictionary which holds the function of for example "truncate"
So like another example would be if I go and say create another control or converter or even a brush or other instance I wish to be made available throughout other elements of an application, it's created as an available resource that is only editable in one spot (a resource dictionary) but usable by all, eg; a StaticResource
Like when you placed your slider and your Textblock, it by default is calling a style for each found in your CoreStyles resource dictionary. If I wanted to change what they did or how they look for example I could copy the resource, edit it as necessary, rename it, and say call it by
I'm creating a resource in the window xaml.
That resource is a controller, like this
<Window.Resources>
<ext:Controller x:Key="Controller"/>
</Window.Resource>
I have controls in my xaml that I want to bind to "compund members" in the Controller, so to speak.
Like if I hade a string in the controller and I want to bind to that strings length
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Source={StaticResource Controller},Path=myString.Length}"/>
or something like that.
It seems like a weird way to do it but I want to keep all of those members in the controller as opposed to making them separate resources, so they have access to certain things in the controller.
The real essence of the problem is that I have a couple of Windows and I want them to share the common resource (an instance of Controller).
So i put a static instnace of controller in controller. i actually want to bind like
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Source={StaticResource Controller},Path=StaticInstance.memberProperty/>
Is it possible to bind to a member of a member or what approach should I be using instead of wanting the "compound path in the binding", so to speak?
Thanks, guys!
Appreciate the help
StaticInstance is not a property of your resource (which is an instance) since it is static. If you want to bind to static members you can use the x:Static markup extension, note that the syntax is quite specific.
The binding probably would look like this:
{Binding Source={x:Static myns:Controller.StaticInstance}, Path=memberProperty}
I'm trying to learn WPF but I find it very difficult to understand bindings, the "resources" thing, and object creation.
My background is in C++/MFC and C#-Winforms.
My questions:
Most of the examples I see in XAML (in MSDN and in two other WPF books I've read) use StaticResource in the binding expression. Are these related in any way to static members? Or is this just a misleading name? When a reference is made to any object as a StaticResource, when is it instantiated?
As far as I can see StaticResources are used with "things" defined in the "Resources" section of the app/window/control etc.
Now, these Resources sections are very confusing to me.
What exactly are they? From my experience in MFC these were icons, strings, etc. However, judging by all the examples I've seen, in WPF these seem to be essentially a "dumping ground" for
(a) all kinds of global object definitions in markup (styles, data templates, etc)
(b) all kinds of global object instantiations in markup
Am I correct? This strikes me as very messy.
It essentially involves learning all sorts of semi-DSLs in XAML (for defining styles, for defining data templates, for creating objects etc), and sticking them together in the same place.
I keep thinking about something like editing the resource file (.rc) in MFC by hand. At least there the sections were well separated and the syntax for each resource was relatively simple.
To tie up the previous two questions: When I define an object instance in the Resources section, and later reference it from a StaticResource binding, when exactly is it instantiated?
MSDN says (in "How to: Make Data Available for Binding in XAML"):
one way you can make the object
available for binding is to define it
as a resource
However, this isn't very clear. What do they mean available? Do they mean created? Do they mean hooked up to the binding subsystem? And when exactly is that object created?
From playing around with a simple example I saw that WPF seems to create this object for me when it tries to attach the binding. And this is even more confusing.
EDIT:
After the clarification by karmicpuppet below, I'm still confused as to how this is connected to Binding.
Suppose I have in my resources:
<local:Person x:Key="MyPerson" Name="Title"/>
(where Person is a class with a property called Name) and then in the window I have:
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Source={StaticResource MyPerson}, Path=Name}"/>
1) What does this do? Does it goes through the same steps - searching for the resource and then applying it to the Text property? Does the MyPerson object gets created at the time of Window creation, or later?
2) Do I have to use the Binding mechanism to bind to the Name property? Can't I bind to it directly like you did above with myBrush? Why can't I do something like this?
<TextBlock Text="{StaticResource MyPerson, Path=Name}"/>
Is it just a short-sightedness on the part of the framework? I think I'm missing very big here, but I can't seem to understand what...
3) I tried using DynamicResource, but I am very confused about each step I took.
a) Added a DependencyObject with a DependencyProperty above my single Window class in code (is this DependencyObject necessary?)
public class SomeText : DependencyObject
{
public string Header
{
get { return (string)GetValue(HeaderProperty); }
set { SetValue(HeaderProperty, value); }
}
public static readonly DependencyProperty HeaderProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register("Header", typeof(string), typeof(SomeText), new UIPropertyMetadata(0));
}
b) Added an instance of it to the Windows.Resources (is this necessary with DynamicResource? MSDN seems to say no, but if so I can't figure out how to do the next step in XAML)
c) I tried both:
Text="{Binding Source={DynamicResource HeaderText}, Path=Header}"
Which gave me an exception, and
Text="{DynamicResource HeaderText}"
But I couldn't understand where to put the path to the Header property.
This is my 5th or so attempt to fiddle around with WPF lately, and each time I get stumped by this seemingly simple things which don't work. I've read 2 books and I really try to understand the MSDN articles, however they're of no help at all.
First, an overall comment:
WPF is hard to learn. It's hard to learn because there are several different fundamentally new concepts that you have to get your head around at the same time. The struggle that you're having right now is that you're trying to learn at least three different things at once:
How the XamlReader (and particularly markup extensions) deserializes XAML into objects.
How the FrameworkElement's resource dictionaries work.
How data binding works.
Something like this:
<TextBox Text="{Binding Source={StaticResource MyPerson}, Path=Name}"/>
is engaging (at least) three very different technologies at the same time. Those technologies are all designed to be as flexible as possible, which only makes them more confusing to the beginner. The idea that a binding source can be just about anything: that's hard to grasp. The idea that a markup extension is a special kind of serialization format that supports recursion: simple enough to understand in principle, but a little baffling when you first start working with real-world examples. The idea that a resource dictionary can contain just about anything, and that the resource searching algorithm essentially makes resources inheritable: again, pretty simple in concept, but easy to lose the thread of when you're trying to figure out data binding and XAML at the same time.
It's frustrating, because something that's conceptually simple - "I want to bind this control to a property of an object that I've created" - requires that you understand a great many things before you can actually express it in XAML.
The only solution is to be patient, and to make sure you understand things at the lowest level possible. When you see this:
{StaticResource MyPerson}
you should be able to think, "That's going to invoke the StaticResource markup extension handler, which retrieves an object from a resource dictionary using the key MyPerson when the XAML is deserialized.
It's extremely challenging at first. I've been developing software professionally for 35 years, and I've found WPF to be the most challenging technology platform that I've ever learned by a considerable margin. But all of this stuff is hard to learn because it's incredibly functional and flexible. And the payoff of learning it is huge.
To address a couple of issues that karmicpuppet didn't:
From my experience in MFC [resources] were icons, strings, etc.
That hasn't changed. You can still create resource files in WPF and load them into objects at runtime. There are lots of different ways of doing this - you can create resources in the resource editor and load them via the Properties.Resources object, you can add image files (for instance) to the project, have them compiled as resources, and load them using their URI, and there are plenty of other ways that I don't know about.
The resources available to FrameworkElements via their resource dictionaries are a different thing. Well, sort of. Here's an example:
<Window.Resources>
<Image x:Key="MyImage" Source="images/myimage.png"/>
</Window.Resources>
This creates an Image object and adds it to the Window's resource dictionary with a key of MyImage You can then reference that object via the StaticResource markup extension in XAML, or the FindResource method in code.
Setting the Source attribute on the Image element in XAML also makes the XamlReader use the ResourceManager to read the image data from the project's compiled resources at runtime when it creates the Image object.
In practice, this is nowhere near as confusing as it is when you're first learning WPF. I never get resources that ResourceManager loads and resources stored in resource dictionaries mixed up.
And when exactly is that object created?
Any object defined by a XAML element is created when the XamlReader reads the element. So this:
<Window.Resources>
<local:Person x:Key="MyPerson"/>
</Window.Resources>
instantiates a new Person object and adds it to the Window's resource dictionary with a key of MyPerson. It's exactly equivalent to doing this in the Window's code-behind:
AddResource("MyPerson", new Person());
So why don't you just do it in code-behind? Two reasons:
First, it's consistent. If you define all your resources in XAML, you only need to look in XAML files to find what your resources are. If you define them in both XAML and code-behind, you have to look in two places.
Second, the IDE knows about resources that you define in XAML. If you type
<TextBox Text="{Binding {StaticResource MyPerson}, Path=Name}"/>
in your XAML, the IDE will let you know if you haven't defined, somewhere in the hierarchy of resource dictionaries, a resource whose key is MyPerson. But it doesn't know about resources that you've added in code, and so even though the resource may actually be findable at runtime, the IDE will report it as a problem.
Think about it this way: all FrameworkElements (Windows, Buttons, other Controls, etc), as well as the Application object, contain a Dictionary of Resources. Whenever you define a resource in XAML as shown here:
<Window>
<Window.Resources>
<SolidColorBrush x:Key="myBrush" Color="Red"/>
<DataTemplate x:Key"myTemplate">
<!--Template definition here -->
</DataTemplate>
</Window.Resources>
</Window>
It's like doing something like this in code:
class Window
{
void Window()
{
this.Resources.Add("myBrush", new SolidColorBrush(Brushes.Red));
this.Resources.Add("myTemplate", new DataTemplate());
}
}
You can put all kinds of objects as Resources. Anything that you would like to re-use throughout your application, you can define it as a Resource.
Now, when you do use a "{StaticResource}" as follows:
<Button Background="{StaticResource myBrush}"/>
This is like telling WPF to search for the corresponding "myBrush" resource and apply it to the Background property. What will happen is WPF will first search the resource in the Button's resource dictionary, and if it's not found will search its parent, then its parent's parent, and so on up to the application's resources.
The "static" thing in "StaticResource" just distinguishes it from the other type of resource-lookup called "DynamicResource". The difference between the two is answered in this link.
When applied to Binding, it also works the same way. Say, for instance, you have the following resource in your XAML:
<local:Person x:Key="MyPerson" Name="Title"/>
and used it as:
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Source={StaticResource MyPerson}, Path=Name}"/>
In this case, what will happen is something like this:
Binding b = new Binding();
b.Source = FindResource("MyPerson");
b.Path = "Name";
[TextBlock].SetBinding(TextBlock.TextProperty, b);
Again, the "{StaticResource}" markup in the XAML tells WPF to search for the corresponding resource and set it as the value for the a property. In this case, the property is Binding's "Source" property.
That's the basics. Hope you find this helpful
Or "how do you make sure all your bindings stay correct?"
(this is kinda lengthy, but bear with me, I tried to make it as short as I could)
Consider the following example:
<TextBox Name="tb" />
<TextBlock Text="{Binding Text.TheProp, ElementName=tb}" />
It is perfectly known at compile time that the binding is incorrect (i.e. the parser knows the type of element tb, and therefore, it knows the type of it's Text property, and therefore, it knows that TheProp doesn't exist).
Yet, this code will compile and run (although with a binding error message in debug output).
This behavior may come in very handy in some situations: no matter what exact type my data is, as long as it has appropriately named properties, I'm ok. Thus, we get sort of "declarative duck typing".
However, duck typing is not always a good thing.
Specifically, while using the MVVM pattern, I know (most of the time) the exact types of all my ViewModel objects. On the other hand, the models become more and more complex over time, which gets me worried about future refactoring: what if I decide to rename some properties, or, God forbid, put them in a separate aggregated object? What's going to happen with all my bindings then? Will I have to rake all XAML files by hand? And even without refactoring - what if I simply make a typo?
A similar problem is already solved in other places of XAML. If, for instance, you put an incorrect property name in Style/Setter/#Property, you get a compile time error.
TemplateBinding also provides such verification. Which is very handy.
So, ideally, I would love to see something like this:
ProductViewModel.cs:
public class ProductViewModel
{
public Name { get; set; }
public Price { get; set; }
}
ProductView.XAML:
<UserControl x:Class="Shopping.View.ProductView"
x:DataContextType="vm:ProductViewModel"
xmlns:vm="clr-namespace:Shopping.ViewModel"
... >
<TextBox Text="{Binding Name}" /> <!-- OK -->
<TextBox Text="{Binding Price}" /> <!-- OK -->
<TextBox Text="{Binding ABC}" /> <!-- Compile time error: there is no property ABC in ProductViewModel -->
</UserControl>
ShoppingCart.XAML:
<UserControl x:Class="Shopping.View.ShoppingCartView"
x:DataContextType="vm:ShoppingCartViewModel"
xmlns:vm="clr-namespace:Shopping.ViewModel"
... >
<ItemsControl ItemsSource="{Binding Products}"
ItemType="vm:ProductViewModel" > <!-- Static check happens here
ShoppingCartViewModel.Products must
implement IEnumerable<ProductViewModel> -->
<ItemsControl.ItemTemplate>
<DataTemplate DataType="vm:ProductViewModel">
<view:ProductView /> <!-- DataContext is known to be of correct type
because of DataTemplate.DataType property -->
</DataTemplate>
</ItemsControl.ItemTemplate>
</ItemsControl>
</UserControl>
But let's get back to reality. In reality, all that dreaming is just not going to happen in the near future.
However, I am sure I'm not the first person to have this problem.
So, finally, the question is: How do you make sure your bindings are correct? And that they stay that way?
How about static analysis of your Xaml performed as a post-build step?
As part of .Net 4, Microsoft released a new System.Xaml library to provide robust Xaml parsing and serialization support independent of WPF. They are now beginning to build all kinds of interesting things on top of it, some of which may help you out.
In the XamlToolkit, for example, you'll find the XamlDOM that enables you to do easy static analysis of Xaml files. And taking that a bit further, there's FxCop rules for XAML.
Of most interest is Rob Relyea's BindingFinder that has the explicit goal of type checking Bindings in Xaml. This requires that you have type hints in your Xaml, like the DataType attribute in a DataTemplate, or the the new d:DataContext attribute on your Views (which Blend uses to provide design-time data). It then uses the XamlDOM to check that everything matches up.
Update: Resharper 6 now provides intellisense for data bindings, and warnings if you get your property paths wrong.
As a practical matter, I've never found this to be a problem, at least when using the MVVM pattern. The view model only exists in support of the view. I'm not going to change one without changing the other. Refactoring the view model isn't going to break the bindings in the view because it makes no sense to refactor the view model for its own sake. You'll only refactor the view model when (and because) you're changing the design of the view.
The other reason that I don't have this problem is that I'm not developing the view model independently of Expression Blend. For all but the most trivial UIs, I build my view models using some kind of dependency injection so that I can create a test data source that's usable in Expression Blend. When I create bindings in Blend, I know right away whether or not I've done it right.
As with MVVM in general, doing this is an unbelieveable pain in the ass until you understand what you're doing and why. (This long blog post by Jonas Follesø gives a pretty good overview of how to use Ninject for this purpose, though there are no end of other frameworks you can use.) I'm sure that there are problems that I haven't uncovered yet with this methodology - above and beyond the problem that I've added DI frameworks and Expression Blend onto the heap of things that I need to understand to develop WPF applications.
Pablo Casals said that constant experimentation keeps the artist young. I don't feel young.