I have an audio recording app in Windows Phone 7.
The app allows a user to play the recorded sounds.
I try to stick to MVVM guidelines where it is possible.
I have a play/stop button in a list of all recordings. Each recording has its own ViewModel, which, besides all, also controls the look of the corresponding play/stop button.
The button has a custom visual state defined in its' style.
The Visual State is bound to the ViewModel's property using the approach, shown here:
http://tdanemar.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/using-the-visualstatemanager-with-the-model-view-viewmodel-pattern-in-wpf-or-silverlight/
Having implemented this approach, whenever I want to change the look of the play/stop button, I need to set the public string property (named "PlayStopVisualState") in my ViewModel to either "PlayingState" or "Normal", and that will assign an appropriate visual state to my button.
The problem is that when user presses the play button, a SoundEffectInstance is created in a background thread, which plays the sound. The thread then waits for the playing to end. When the recording playing is over (I have to track it in the same background thread, or create another for just tracking SoundEffectInstance.State) I set the PlayStopVisualState property back to "Normal", but I get a cross-thread reference exception. Isn't MVVM specifically designed to allow developers to manipulate logical variables in a view model, and not having to worry about how the changes to them are reflected in a View?
I know that I need to do the adjustment of the PlayStopVisualState property in a Dispatcher thread in order for the problem to disappear, but this is just no right. It, from my point of view, defeats the whole purpose of MVVM, leaving only the organizational advantage.
Or am I doing something wrong? Thanks.
UPDATE:
I have worked around the problem by using
Deployment.Current.Dispatcher
but it seems to me as a very "ugly" solution, given that I almost all over have MVVM pattern followed.
Using the Dispatcher to reflect a UI-bound value is the correct way to do it, yes.
What you're forgetting is that your ViewModel is created on the UI thread. So any change to the ViewModel from a background thread, would a cross-thread operation.
You should consider if a background thread is really needed. , or if you could just schedule your action on the UI thread directly.
Related
In my WPF application, I am using the ViewModelLocator without IoC. I am calling the static ViewModelLocator.Cleanup() method provided by the MVVM-Light framework from my own button which is tied to a "close window command". This Command calls the static ViewModelLocator.Cleanup(), which calls an instance Cleanup() method on my MainWindowViewModel instance. The instance Cleanup() method then sets the property to which the MainWindow binds its DataContext, to null. The setter on the property raises a PropertyChanged event. Curiously, setting this property to null does not cause the window to close.
I am trying to understand why this is the case? If I set the MainWindow's DataContext to null, should that not be the same as Window.Close()? In my case, the Window and all of its elements remain on the screen. However, if I attempt further actions, I get null pointer exceptions, indicating the DataContext binding Property has indeed been set to null; this has also been confirmed in the debugger.
I have created a workaround by hooking the Application.Exit event and issuing a Window.Close() in the event handler in order to create my own "Close Window" button (ie, to create same functionality for my own Button / Command as clicking the X button in the upper right of a Window). Since calling a UI element (ie, the Window instance) from MVVM directly is not MVVM friendly, I used a ViewService to implement the Window.Close() functionality in order to keep the workaround MVVM friendly. I am a big fan of the ViewService idiom (or pattern), but I just don't think it should be necessary here; except, I could see how exiting the app is a special case that perhaps should tie-in with the application lifecycle, and .Net seems to only allow exiting a WPF app by issuing the Window.Close() method.
Thoughts appreciated.
I believe I have found the answer to my original question, in addition to the one raised in my comments discussion with flq.
First, the answer to the original question is that the proper way to close the Window is along the lines of what I did in my described "workaround". Closing an app is a View-initiated process, as it is the Window control that has the bits for how to do it. You can of course hook the Application.Exit event so that you can perform cleanup on your ViewModels, prompt the user to save data, etc..
The question raised by me after some interesting discussion with flq is, if I don't just set a control's DataContext (ie, ViewModel) to null in order to release the View and ViewModel resources, how should I do it?
An interesting discussion with some nuances can be found here, but the basic answer is that you find the parent control and remove the control you want to close from its Children list. Note, this is a different technique with a different goal than just making the control not visible by setting is Visibility property to Collapsed. In the following example, "this" is the control to be removed (ie, "Closed"):
Panel p = (Panel) this.Parent;
p.Children.Remove(this);
I am not sure if you still need to then set the child (ie, "this") to null to re-claim its resources, or, if just removing it from the visual tree will cause WPF to re-claim the resources; the above linked discussion makes no mention. As mentioned in the original discussion, the above technique can be supplemented by hooking it to certain events, or using other application specific logic.
I've been puzzled by this for a while. I am writing quite a large RibbonWindow WPF application using the MVVM pattern. The screen has a RibbonBar menu along the top and the rest of it displays the various Views. Some Views contain other Views and some of these have buttons that launch child Windows.
So far, I have been doing this from the View code behind file, but I'm aware that these files are supposed to be empty when using MVVM. I could move the child window launch code to the ViewModel, but then I would need a reference to the main RibbonWindow (to set as the child window owner) and that doesn't seem right.
Any advice or tips on how this is normally achieved using MVVM would be greatly appreciated.
I usually handle this by creating some sort of WindowViewLoaderService. When your program initializes you register your Window's and your ViewModels with code something like this:
WindowViewLoaderService.Register(TypeOf(MainWindowView), TypeOf(MainWindowViewModel));
WindowViewLoaderService.Register(TypeOf(MyWindowView), TypeOf(MyWindowViewModel));
Then when you can for example call into this service from your ViewModel and all you have to reference is your other ViewModel. For example if you are in your MainWindowViewModel you might have code like this:
var myChildWindowVM = new MyWindowViewModel();
WindowViewLoaderService.ShowWindow(myChildWindowVM);
The WindowViewLoaderService would then look up what View is associated with the specified ViewModel you passed it. It will create that View, Set its DataContext to the ViewModel you passed in, and then display the View.
This way your ViewModels never know about any Views.
You can roll your own one of these services pretty easily. All it needs to do is keep a Dictionary with the key being your ViewModelType and the value being your ViewType. The Register method adds to your dictionary and the ShowWindow method looks up the correct view based on the ViewModel passed in, creates the view, sets the DataContext, and then calls Show on it.
Most MVVM Frameworks provide something like this for you out of the box. For example Caliburn has a slick one that just uses naming convention its called ViewLocator in this Framework. Here is a link that summarizes: http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_eisenberg/archive/2010/07/04/mvvm-study-segue-introducing-caliburn-micro.aspx
Cinch on the other hand calls it a WPFUIVisualizerService which you can see in action here:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WPF/CinchIII.aspx
These should help get you rolling.
Well, one remark to start with is that, "Having no code AT ALL in the code-behind" is actually a "myth". If you want to be pragmatic, and you see that having some code (as little as possible would be better), will make your life easier and solve your problem, then you should go with that.
However, in this situation, there are actually some loosely coupled ways to do this. You could have a service that does the interaction for you. You initiate the interaction with the user from the ViewModel, the service takes care of that (by showing a ChildWindow for example), and gives you back the user's reponse. That service can be mocked for testing easily. And it can be tested seperately.
That is, if you want to do things yourself. If you want a framework to do the heavy lifting for you, you can check out the InteractionRequest functionaity offered by Prism. Here's the MSDN article that talks about adanced MVVM scenarios which includes a section on User Interaction Patterns. That's the way I do it, and it's pretty simple, elegant and straightforward.
Hope this helps :)
To take Matt's answer one step further, you can have all your view's be a user control. Then create a ViewContainer, which is a window with your data templates (as you described).
Then you just ship the viewmodel you wish to open over to the window service, which sets the DataContext. The service would then open the window and the contentcontrol will resolve the correct view for the viewmodel.
This means all the registration is done in the XAML and the window service just knows how to do just that...open and close windows.
This is an old post, but maybe this'll help someone along the way: I use MVVM, and raise events for opening child windows from the ViewModel back to the View. The only code behind is handling the event, opening the window, setting owner of the child window and that's pretty much it. In the viewmodel, if the eventhandler is null, then it's not subscribed to by the view and doesn't fire. The VM does not know about the view. The code is pretty simple also and only takes a few lines.
In this situation View should handle the opening of the child windows.
However, ViewModel might drive the creation of the windows, but calling into View to create a new Windows.
This will save the logic of MVVM pattern: ViewModel has the "brains" but is not involved in a particular window creation.
ViewModel only is used to present system state and UI logic. One viewmodel may be referenced by multiple views. It have no knowledge of UI specific code like parent/child relationship, position, layout, size etc. So it is better to pop child window in view's code-behind with ViewModel's state changed event or command event and event arguments. In this way you can specify which one is the parent view in the UI layer.
I need an elegant solution (I am working on silverlight 4.0) to solve this simple problem(?) using the MVVM pattern:
My mainpage xaml has my two custom user controls like this (say):
<uc:MyCustomUC1>
<uc:MyCustomUC2>
Each one has its own view model and both these user controls are independent of each other.
When an asynchronous operation in MyCustomUC1 has completed, I want an ICommand in MyCustomUC2's viewmodel to be invoked thus refreshing data in MyCustomUC2. I want this done by the parent page and all in xaml.
Exposing dependency properties, event handlers etc in the user controls...anything is ok since I own the user control ...whatever makes sense.
Any ideas ?
Use Mvvm Lights messenger, you can register a listener in MyCustomUC2's viewmodel to refresh. Then in MyCustomUC1's async call back, send the message to refresh.
You could use a PropertyObserver, which I believe you can find info on here:
Property Observer.
It'll allow you to check when something has changed in one ViewModel and then take the appropriate action in another. I've used this quite a bit recently in a project and it has worked pretty well.
Apologies if I've picked up the question incorrectly.
Well lets say i have an object that i databind to, it implements INotifyPropertyChanged to tell the GUI when a value has changed...
if i trigger this from a different thread than the GUI thread how would wpf behave?
and will it make sure that it gets the value of the property from memory and not the cpu cache?
more or less im asking if wpf does lock() on the object containing the property...
Value changes fired by INotifyPropertyChanged are automatically marshalled back onto the dispatcher. (http://blog.lab49.com/archives/1166)
Fire this event on any thread you like...
Value changes fired by INotifyCollectionChanged are NOT reliably marshalled onto the dispatcher. (http://csharplive.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/wpf-data-binding-observablecollection-cross-thread-binding-support/)
If you need to update an observable collection from a different thread, follow the advice in this link
In addition to #Rob Fonseca-Ensor's answer, there is some good news for those lucky enough to use WPF4.5:
WPF enables you to access and modify data collections on threads other than the one that created the collection. This enables you to use a background thread to receive data from an external source, such as a database, and display the data on the UI thread. By using another thread to modify the collection, your user interface remains responsive to user interaction. (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb613588(v=vs.110).aspx#xthread_access)
There's a helpful summary by Jonathan Antoine: http://www.jonathanantoine.com/2011/09/24/wpf-4-5-part-7-accessing-collections-on-non-ui-threads/
In practice it seems to work as expected and seems to be thread-safe (haven't seen anything odd happen or exceptions as a result of updating on background thread). I believe it invokes on to the UI thread when needed, but I'm not too familiar with the internals.
I'm currently designing/reworking the databinding part of an application that makes heavy use of winforms databinding and updates coming from a background thread (once a second on > 100 records).
Let's assume the application is a stock trading application, where a background thread monitors for data changes and putting them onto the data objects. These objects are stored in a BindingList<> and implement INotifyPropertyChanged to propagate the changes via databinding to the winforms controls.
Additionally the data objects are currently marshalling the changes via WinformsSynchronizationContext.Send to the UI thread.
The user is able to enter some of the values in the UI, which means that some values can be changed from both sides. And the user values shouldn't be overritten by updates.
So there are several question coming to my mind:
Is there a general design-guildline how to do that (background updates in databinding)?
When and how to marshal on the UI thread?
What is the best way of the background thread to interact with
binding/data objects?
Which classes/Interfaces should be used? (BindingSource, ...)
...
The UI doesn't really know that there is a background thread, that updates the control, and as of my understanding in databinding scenarios the UI shouldn't know where the data is coming from... You can think of the background thread as something that pushes data to the UI, so I'm not sure if the backgroundworker is the option I'm searching for.
Sometimes you want to get some UI response during an operation in the data-/business object (e.g. setting the background during recalculations). Raising a propertychanged on a status property which is bound to the background isn't enough, as the control get's repainted after the calculation has finished? My idea would be to hook on the propertychanged event and call .update() on the control...
Any other ideas about that?
This is a hard problem since most “solutions” lead to lots of custom code and lots of calls to BeginInvoke() or System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker (which itself is just a thin wrapper over BeginInvoke).
In the past, I've also found that you soon wish to delay sending your INotifyPropertyChanged events until the data is stable. The code that handles one propriety-changed event often needs to read other proprieties. You also often have a control that needs to redraw itself whenever the state of one of many properties changes, and you don’t wan the control to redraw itself too often.
Firstly, each custom WinForms control should read all data it needs to paint itself in the PropertyChanged event handler, so it does not need to lock any data objects when it was a WM_PAINT (OnPaint) message. The control should not immediately repaint itself when it gets new data; instead, it should call Control.Invalidate(). Windows will combine the WM_PAINT messages into as few requests as possible and only send them when the UI thread has nothing else to do. This minimizes the number of redraws and the time the data objects are locked. (Standard controls mostly do this with data binding anyway)
The data objects need to record what has changed as the changes are made, then once a set of changes has been completed, “kick” the UI thread into calling the SendChangeEvents method that then calls the PropertyChanged event handler (on the UI thread) for all properties that have changed. While the SendChangeEvents() method is running, the data objects must be locked to stop the background thread(s) from updating them.
The UI thread can be “kicked” with a call to BeginInvoke whenever a set of update have bean read from the database. Often it is better to have the UI thread poll using a timer, as Windows only sends the WM_TIMER message when the UI message queue is empty, hence leading to the UI feeling more responsive.
Also consider not using data binding at all, and having the UI ask each data object “what has changed” each time the timer fires. Databinding always looks nice, but can quickly become part of the problem, rather then part of the solution.
As locking/unlock of the data-objects is a pain and may not allow the updates to be read from the database fast enough, you may wish to pass the UI thread a (virtual) copy of the data objects. Having the data object be persistent/immutable so that any changes to the data object return a new data object rather than changing the current data object can enable this.
Persistent objects sound very slow, but need not be, see this and that for some pointers. Also look at this and that on Stack Overflow.
Also have a look at retlang - Message-based concurrency in .NET. Its message batching may be useful.
(For WPF, I would have a View-Model that sets in the UI thread that was then updated in ‘batches’ from the multi-threaded model by the background thread. However, WPF is a lot better at combining data binding events then WinForms.)
Yes all the books show threaded structures and invokes etc. Which is perfectly correct etc, but it can be a pain to code, and often hard to organise so you can make decent tests for it
A UI only needs to be refreshed so many times a second, so performance is never an issue, and polling will work fine
I like to use a object graph that is being continuously updated by a pool of background threads. They check for actual changes in data values and when they notice an actual change they update a version counter on the root of the object graph (or on each main item whatever makes more sense) and updates the values
Then your foreground process can have a timer (same as UI thread by default) to fire once a second or so and check the version counter, and if it changes, locks it (to stop partial updates) and then refreshes the display
This simple technique totally isolates the UI thread from the background threads
There is an MSDN article specific on that topic. But be prepared to look at VB.NET. ;)
Additionally maybe you could use System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker, instead of a generic second thread, since it nicely formalize the kind of interaction with the spawned background thread you are describing. The example given in the MSDN library is pretty decent, so go look at it for a hint on how to use it.
Edit:
Please note: No marshalling is required if you use the ProgressChanged event to communicate back to the UI thread. The background thread calls ReportProgress whenever it has the need to communicate with the UI. Since it is possible to attach any object to that event there is no reason to do manual marshalling. The progress is communicated via another async operation - so there is no need to worry about neither how fast the UI can handle the progress events nor if the background thread gets interruped by waiting for the event to finish.
If you prove that the background thread is raising the progress changed event way too fast then you might want to look at Pull vs. Push models for UI updates an excellent article by Ayende.
I just fought a similar situation - badkground thread updating the UI via BeginInvokes. The background has a delay of 10ms on every loop, but down the road I ran into problems where the UI updates which sometimes get fired every time on that loop, can't keep up with teh freq of updates, and the app effectively stops working (not sure what happens- blew a stack?).
I wound up adding a flag in the object passed over the invoke, which was just a ready flag. I'd set this to false before calling the invoke, and then the bg thread would do no more ui updates until this flag is toggled back to true. The UI thread would do it's screen updates etc, and then set this var to true.
This allowed the bg thread to keep crunching, but allowed the ui to shut off the flow until it was ready for more.
Create a new UserControl, add your control and format it (maybe dock = fill) and add a property.
now configure the property to invoke the usercontrol and update your element, each time you change the property form any thread you want!
thats my solution:
private long value;
public long Value
{
get { return this.value; }
set
{
this.value = value;
UpdateTextBox();
}
}
private delegate void Delegate();
private void UpdateTextBox()
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke(new Delegate(UpdateTextBox), new object[] {});
}
else
{
textBox1.Text = this.value.ToString();
}
}
on my form i bind my view
viewTx.DataBindings.Add(new Binding("Value", ptx.CounterTX, "ReturnValue"));
This is a problem that I solved in Update Controls. I bring this up not to suggest you rewrite your code, but to give you some source to look at for ideas.
The technique that I used in WPF was to use Dispatcher.BeginInvoke to notify the foreground thread of a change. You can do the same thing in Winforms with Control.BeginInvoke. Unfortunately, you have to pass a reference to a Form object into your data object.
Once you do, you can pass an Action into BeginInvoke that fires PropertyChanged. For example:
_form.BeginInvoke(new Action(() => NotifyPropertyChanged(propertyName))) );
You will need to lock the properties in your data object to make them thread-safe.
This post is old but I thought I'd give options to others. It seems once you start doing async programming and Windows Forms databinding you end up with problems updating Bindingsource datasource or updating lists bound to windows forms control. I am going to try using Jeffrey Richters AsyncEnumerator class from his powerthreading tools on wintellect.
Reason:
1. His AsyncEnumerator class automatically marshals background threads to UI threads so you can update controls as you would doing Synchronous code.
2. AsyncEnumerator simplifies Async programming. It does this automatically, so you write your code in a Synchronous fashion, but the code is still running in an asynchronous fashion.
Jeffrey Richter has a video on Channel 9 MSDN, that explains AsyncEnumerator.
Wish me luck.
-R
I am late to the party but I believe this is still a valid question.
I would advise you to avoid using data binding at all and use Observable objects instead.
The reason is, data binding looks cool and when implemented the code looks good, but data binding miserably fails when there is lot os asynchronous UI update or multi-threading as in your case.
I have personally experienced this problem with asynchronous and Databinding in prod, we even didn't detect it in testing, when users started using all different scenarios things started to break down.