Is it possible to register a view by type with a region within the Module initialization without causing the view to be resolved (instantiated) until the view is request for activation.
A scenario for this is when we have view-first approach with a dependency on and external service. I do not want the service to be initialized until the user really requires that view and this will help improve performance because some external services cost time to initialize.
Note: Multiple views are register to the same region (eg. menu navigation style scenario).
There are two ways to go about this. One has more documentation than the other.
Take over instantiation yourself by using View Injection, rather than allowing the Region to instantiate your view (called View Discovery). This is pretty straightforward, but without knowing your solution, it'd be hard to know exactly what you are looking for.
Utilize the IActiveAware interface. In this scenario, you actually allow the view to be instantiated, but your view would wait for notification from the Region Manager that the view is active. Here is a look at the IActiveAware interface (it's pretty self-explanatory): http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.practices.prism.iactiveaware_members(v=pandp.38).aspx
And a small codesample:
public class MyView : IActiveAware
{
private bool _isActive = false;
public bool IsActive
{
get { return _isActive; }
set
{
_isActive = value;
if(value)
{
//Good idea to thread this if you can
DoSomethingExpensive();
}
}
}
}
Related
I think I'm on my way to finally grokking MVVM. I was just looking at a situation I found myself in and I'm wondering if I should combine two of my layers. I currently have a structure like this:
Domain models (in a separate .net project)
WPF-side "models" which wrap domain models and track dirty state
WPF ViewModels
Views
The question is whether I should combine 2 and 3. Right now #2 is the layer that gets passed around by my mediator to facilitate all the viewmodels knowing what document is currently opened. But I think my code for 2 and 3 is too similar and is unnecessary duplication at this point.
Example:
// in layer 2, class ProjectDocument
// Project is an instance of the domain model
public string Name
{
get { return Project.Name; }
set
{
if (Project.Name == value) return;
Project.Name = value;
Dirty = true;
}
}
// in layer 3, class ProjectSettingsViewModel
// _project is a ProjectDocument
public string Name
{
get { return _project.Name; }
set
{
_project.Name = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Name");
}
}
Seeing that struck me as unnecessary. So should I combine them? On one hand, it would remove a lot of redundant code and I'd have fewer places to update when I change things. On the other, I might be giving one class too much responsibility, and also it seems inappropriate for an actual ViewModel to be passed around to other VMs via my mediator. The ProjectSettingsViewModel wouldn't use even half of the fields on ProjectDocument if they were combined.
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Is there a better way to reduce the duplication while still keeping the responsibilities separate?
I have a master viewmodel that handles application states like which document/tab/window is open and I have an ISettingssService for other global needs. Passing one viewmodel to another is discouraged and you might want to think about creating am iSettings service that can be injected into the viewmodels, then the viewmodels can interact with "global" settings but the viewmodels are still decoupled because they do not depend on another viewmodel.
So, I would not combine them. Either I would have a dictionary of documents that can be open in the master viewmodel with a current open doc property or move this logic to a service/interface that gets used by each viewmodel.
Hope this helps.
my first real (not test) NHibernate/Castle.ActiveRecord project is developing quickly.
I am working with NHibernate/Castle.ActiveRecord about one month now but still have not a real idea how to handle Sessions in my WindowsForms application.
The common handling-methods seam not to work for me:
SessionPerRequest, SessionPerConversation, etc. all only work for WebApplications, etc.
SessionPerApplication is not recomanded/highly dangerous when I am correct
SessionPerThread is not very helpfull, since I either have only one thread, the WindowsForms-thread, or for each button-click a new thread. The first thing would make my applicaton use too much memory and to hold old objects in the memmory. With worker-threads for ech button click I would disable lazy-loading, since my loaded objects would live longer then the thread.
SessionPerPresenter is not working as well, because it is common, that I open a "sub-presenter" in a form to let the user search/load/select some referenced objects (foreigen key) and of cause the presenter is destroyed - what means session closed - but the object used in the "super-presenter" to fill the referencing property (foreigen key).
I've used google and bing for hours and read a lot, but only found one good website about my case: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ee819139.aspx . There SessionPerPresenter is used, but to a "sub-presenter" it is only given the id, not the entire object! And it seams that there are no foreigen-keys in this example and no scenari in wich a object is returned to a "super-presenter".
Qestions
Is there any other method of session handling for windowsforms/desktop-application?
I could add a session-property or a session-constructor-parameter to all of my presenters, but it feels not right to have session-handling all over my ui-code.
When an Exception occures NHibernate want's me to kill the session. But if it is 'only' a business-logic exception and not an NHibernate-Exception?
Example
I am trying to make an example the covers most of my problem.
// The persisten classes
public class Box
{
public virtual int BoxId{get;set;}
public virtual Product Content{get;set;}
...
}
public class User
{
public virtual int UserId{get;set;}
public virtual IList<Product> AssigenedProducts{get;set;}
...
}
public clas Product
{
public virtual int ProductId{get;set;}
public virtual string PrductCode{get;set;}
}
.
// The presenter-classes
public class ProductSearchPresenter : SearchPresenter<Product> { ... }
public class ProductEditPresenter : EditPresenter<Product> { ... }
public class UserSearchPresenter : SearchPresenter<User> { ... }
public class UserEditPresenter : EditPresenter<User> { ... }
public class BoxSearchPresenter : SearchPresenter<Box> { ... }
public class BoxEditPresenter : EditPresenter<Box> { ... }
// The search-presenters allow the user to perform as search with criterias on the class defined as generic argument and to select one of the results
// The edit-presenters allow to edit a new or loaded (and given as parameter) object of the class defined as generic argument
Now I have the following use-cases, wich all can be performed in the same application at the same time asyncronous (the use simply switchs between the presenters).
using an instance of BoxSearchPresenter to search and select a object
part of this usecase is to use an instance of the ProductSearchPresenter to fill a criteria of the BoxSearchPresenter
part of this usecase is to use an instance of the BoxEditPresenter to edit and save the selected object of the BoxSearchPresenter-instance
using an instance of UserSearchPresenter to search and select a object
part of this usecase is to use an instance of the UserEditPresenter to edit and save the slected object of the UserSearchPresenter
part of this usecase is to use a ProductSearchPresenter to search and select objects that will be added to User.AssignedProducts.
Using an instance of ProductSearchPresenter to search and select a object.
part of this usecase is to use an instance of ProductEditPresenter to edit and save a selected object of the ProductSearchPresenter.
It's only a small collection of usecases, but there are allready a lot of the problems I have.
UseCase 1. and 2. run at the same time in the same ui-thread.
UseCase 1.1. and 2.2. return there selected objects to other presenters that use this objects longer then the presenters exist that have loaded the object.
UseCase 3.1. might alter a object loaded from 2.2./1.1. before 3.1. was started, but when 2.2./1.1. is commited before 3.1. is finished the object would be saved and it would not be possible to "rollback" 3.1.
Here is just a short view of what I found best to fit into our WinForms application architecture (based on MVP).
Every presenter is constructor dependent on repositories which it needs, for example if you have InvoicePresenter then you have InvoiceRepository as dependency, but you will probably have CustomerRepository and many others depending on complexity (CustomerRepsitory for loading all customers into the customers combobox if you want to change customer of the invoice, stuff like that).
Then, every repository has a constuctor argument for UnitOfWork. Either you can abstract the session with UnitOfWork pattern, or you can have your reporitories depend on ISession.
Everything is wired together by IoC container, where we create presenters based on "context". This is a very simple concept, context is per presenter and all sub presenter, which in turn we create as composite block of more complex presenters to reduce complexitiy (if for example you have multiple tabs of options to edit some entity or something).
So, in practice, this context is 90% time form based, because one form is at least one presenter / view.
So to answer your questions:
Session per presenter and session per conversation (works with WinForms as well) are only really usable patterns here (and opening closing sessions all over the place, but not really good way to handle that)-
this is best solved by making repositories depend on session, not presenters. You make presenters depend on repositories, repositories depend on session, and when you create all, you give them common session; but as I state again, this is only practical when done in contexts. You cannot share session for presenter editing invoices and another presenter editing customers; but you can share session when editing invoice via main presenter and invoice details and invoice notes sub presenter.
Please clarify, didn't understand this...
Further to my question how can I bind Bing Pushpins from multiple models?
This is pretty new to me and I have been searching through the web but there seem so many different approaches to MVVM and then adding in WP7 and I have got a bit confused
I am now trying to work out the best way to share data between ViewModels or even if that is the best way to do it.
What I mean is I have, for example
My models: PeopleModel, BuildingModel
My ViewModels: PeopleViewModel, BuildingViewModel (which contain Observable collections of the model)
At the moment a Timer is used to update the lists from a Webservice. The ViewModel because it is static is able to be updated during the lifetime of the application. I am not sure this is the most sensible approach though but I need some form of background sync to fit the requirements.
The People and Building contain a location but not anything regarding what image it should display as a pushpin. So I was thinking if I had a my map view containing a MapViewModel that is linked somehow to the ViewModels but I am not sure how you would do this.
I looked at MVVMLight and it seems you can register the ViewModels at start so it would be possible to add links to the other ViewModels and not worry about the lifetimes of them?
However given that there is extra information within the Models that the Map isn't interested in I wonder if is better to have a self-contained MapViewModel that contains lists of Custom pushpins of some type (so PeoplePushpins, BuildingPushpins). If I go this route I would like to know how you update the MapViewModel from data updated in the other Models.
What I mean is the running timer in PersonViewModel detects a change in the list, so updates its own list. I the need to send notification to the Map that there is an update which then will update itself from that.
Any help/advice gratefully received.
With MVVMLight you can use messaging to send data between models:
//build class to send as message
public class AddPushPinMessage
{
public PushPin PushPin { get; set; }
}
public class ReceivingViewModel
{
public ReceivingViewModel()
{
Messenger.Default.Register<AddPushPinMessage>(this, (m) => AddPushPin(m));
}
void AddPushPin(AddPushPinMessage msg)
{
//handle message
}
}
public class SendingViewModel
{
private object SendPushPin(PushPin key)
{
Messenger.Default.Send<AddPushPinMessage>(new SetPushPinMessage() { PushPin = key });
return null;
}
}
I was just about to implement IDataErrorInfo, when I saw INotifyDataErrorInfo was to be used for asynchronous validation. When digging a bit further, I noticed the examples using those interfaces were all on the ViewModel. I need my validation on the model, and I need the errors stored with the model for persistence. I have a large graph with many entities. This graph needs to be passed back to the server for a complex validation. I'm not sure what approach I am supposed to use now.
Do I simply move my inteface implementations to the model?
Another example I saw had a separate validation service. In my case, my validation rules are complex, and I was thinking of using Windows Workflow and its rule engine to improve the maintainability of the validation rules.
Do I need a separate validation service?
Once the validation has completed, the graph must be passed back to the client. Any errors/warnings need to be displayed then.
Should I implement INotifyDataErrors in the model and raise the event when the validation returns to the client to post the errors to the View (through ViewModel)?
As it turns out, I am having trouble referencing the assembly that contains INotifyDataErrors in the class library. It creates a conflict in an assembly that is sharing those classes.
When you have big projects RIA may not be a good idea, for example applications with different layers (Services, Application, Domain, Infrastructure).
Some time ago I had to implement Validation in a Silverlight app with complex rules. I was using Self-tracking entities generated with the Entity Framework. And one of my need was to rehuse all the validation code.
First I tried to use the EntLib Validation Block and use the same code on both the client and the server. This approach doesn't work as you get some problems as SL and .NET4.0 use different versions of the DataAnnotations assembly.
Finally I ended up writing some sort of validation service on the server that returns the errors of an entity if any. Something like this:
interface IValidate
{
IEnumerable<string> Validate(Entity entity);
}
And then on the Client make the ViewModels implement INotifyDataErrorInfo (this interface supports async validation), so you can validate the entity with the Service and save the errors on the ViewModel.
class SomeViewModel : INotifyDataErrorInfo
{
public Entity Entity { get; set; }
public void Validate()
{
this.ClearErrors();
// this method make the service calls
var service = -- service instance --;
var errors = -- get errors from service --;
foreach (string error in errors)
this.AddTopLevelError(error);
}
{...}
}
This way all the validation logic lies on the Server and it can change at any time without affecting the client, because all the entities are passed througth this service before being added to a DataBase (if you're using one).
The service could also return the errors and the property associated with the error, this way you could get a richer interaction with Silverlight. So the service could be:
interface IValidate
{
IEnumerable<PropertyError> Validate(Entity entity);
}
class PropertyError
{
public string PropertyName { get; }
public IEnumerable<string> Errors { get; }
}
Here you can notice that the validation rules could change on the server, and it doesn't matter how this logic is implemented. All this works fine and meets your requeriments, the problem is that Silverlight requires that the object being validated contains all the properties with errors.
This is not a common scenario when working with Databases, as you could have for example (and this is a simple model)
this model was done using Entity Framework 4.1
Because if you have a user instance and want to access to the Email property, you'll have to type: user_instance.Person.Email. So the Email property isn't in the user type, and here is the problem with this solution because you may want to validate the EMails too.
Is this wasn't like this, when you have a ViewModel (implementing INotifyDataErrorInfo) with an Entity (like above) and wants the entity (User in this case) to be validated, you only have to add an error to the property Entity.Person.Email.
But the world isn't perfect, so the solution i found was to duplicate each one of the properties to be validated on the ViewModel, something like this:
class SomeViewModel : INotifyDataErrorInfo
{
public User Entity { get; set; }
public string Name { get { return Entity.UserName; } set {...} }
public string Email { get { return Entity.Person.Email; } set {...} }
{...}
}
This way you can bind the controls to the ViewModels properties instead of the entities properties, but it gets a bit hard to work with the change notifications.
You may also want to check: this toolkit. It solves this problem defining a wapper to your entity and using DynamicObject simulates an object that has all the properties from the wrapped one. This is a bit slow when working with large ammounts of data, but simplifies the work a lot.
Hope this helps.
Currently for ASP.Net stuff I use a request model where a context is created per request (Only when needed) and is disposed of at the end of that request. I've found this to be a good balance between not having to do the old Using per query model and not having a context around forever. Now the problem is that in WPF, I don't know of anything that could be used like the request model. Right now it looks like its to keep the same context forever (Which can be a nightmare) or go back to the annoying Using per query model that is a huge pain. I haven't seen a good answer on this yet.
My first thought was to have an Open and Close (Or whatever name) situation where the top level method being called (Say an event handling method like Something_Click) would "open" the context and "close" it at the end. Since I don't have anything on the UI project aware of the context (All queries are contained in methods on partial classes that "extend" the generated entity classes effectively creating a pseudo layer between the entities and the UI), this seems like it would make the entity layer dependent on the UI layer.
Really at a loss since I'm not hugely familiar with state programming.
Addition:
I've read up on using threads, but the
problem I have with a context just
sitting around is error and recovery.
Say I have a form that updates user
information and there's an error. The
user form will now display the changes
to the user object in the context
which is good since it makes a better
user experience not to have to retype
all the changes.
Now what if the user decides to go to
another form. Those changes are still
in the context. At this point I'm
stuck with either an incorrect User
object in the context or I have to get
the UI to tell the Context to reset
that user. I suppose that's not
horrible (A reload method on the user
class?) but I don't know if that
really solves the issue.
Have you thought about trying a unit of work? I had a similar issue where I essentially needed to be able to open and close a context without exposing my EF context. I think we're using different architectures (I'm using an IoC container and repository layer), so I have to cut up this code a bit to show it to you. I hope it helps.
First, when it comes to that "Something_Click" method, I'd have code that looked something like:
using (var unitOfWork = container.Resolve<IUnitOfWork>){
// do a bunch of stuff to multiple repositories,
// all which will share the same context from the unit of work
if (isError == false)
unitOfWork.Commit();
}
In each of my repositories, I'd have to check to see if I was in a unit of work. If I was, I'd use the unit of work's context. If not, I'd have to instantiate my own context. So in each repository, I'd have code that went something like:
if (UnitOfWork.Current != null)
{
return UnitOfWork.Current.ObjectContext;
}
else
{
return container.Resolve<Entities>();
}
So what about that UnitOfWork? Not much there. I had to cut out some comments and code, so don't take this class as working completely, but... here you go:
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
private static LocalDataStoreSlot slot = Thread.AllocateNamedDataSlot("UnitOfWork");
private Entities entities;
public UnitOfWork(Entities entities)
{
this.entities = entities;
Thread.SetData(slot, this);
}
public Entities ObjectContext
{
get
{
return this.Entities;
}
}
public static IUnitOfWork Current
{
get { return (UnitOfWork)Thread.GetData(slot); }
}
public void Commit()
{
this.Entities.SaveChanges();
}
public void Dispose()
{
entities.Dispose();
Thread.SetData(slot, null);
}
}
It might take some work to factor this into your solution, but this might be an option.