I build a WinForm application using the MVP pattern.
My model is an hierarchical tree of folders and files. My view has a tree view to show it.
I now face the requirement to "remember" which nodes in the UI tree were expanded in the last session.
This information does not feel to belong in the file system model. or does it? and if this is presenter logic does it mean I need to persist my presenter also?
No, you should not persist your presenter, you should have a configuration/settings/appdata file where you can store that information, after all is a requirement of your application and you should model it as you'd model anything else.
what I find useful doing is, while the application is in a 'transient' state is to reflect any change that the user does through the View in a model in the presenter; this would mean that everytime a node is expanded, you would inform the presenter about that and update the value of your model. when the user closes the session you persist this model somewhere, a file or a db,etc.
so as a summary,
model: holds the domain data, in your
case which folder/file was expanded
presenter: interacts with the view and the model to reflect those changes in the current model reference.
hope it helps
Related
I've inherited an application which uses the view-first MVVMC patern
In the application I've created 2 step process which creates a person and assigns them to a group. To do this I've created a view and corresponding view model (all views have a 1-2-1 relationship with a view model, view models are injected into the View constructor and are registered with the Unity container using the TransientLifetimeManager) called CreatePersonMaster, the view simply contains a region (shown by the dashed line) which sub-views can be loaded into and the view model subscribes to two loosely coupled events, "PersonCreated" and "GroupSelected". The "PersonCreated" event saves a Person entity in a field and the "GroupSelected" event takes the saved Person, creates a Group association and saves them to a database.
This view/view model doesn't do anything until the events get raised so I load the following sub views into my the region.
These views/view models fire the events which get handled by the master view.
I also have an edit view where I want to re-use the select group view.
I can do this by subscribing to the appropriate events in the EditPersonMaster view model.
My question really is, is this the appropriate way to do this? Because I'm using loosely coupled events I don't get any feedback into the sub-View/ViewModels if there's an error when creating/reassigning? I could probably fire another "ErrorBlah" event for the inner view/model to handle and update the view.
Is there another way to do this? Composite commands don't seem to fit the bill but maybe I don't understand them correctly.
Here is how I understood your question: You have persons stored in a database, which have a property/column group. In your UI, you want to create persons and assign the group property. Also, you want to be able to edit the group property of existing persons in a different region/page/master. You want to reuse the control for assigning the group. Your controls fire an event, which is handled by the Master in a way that it creates the entries in the database (is that correct?). Your question is whether this is a good approach and what alternatives you have?
I see two options:
1. Modularize your business logic:
You could inject a data service into your ViewModels, which could access the database directly. This way you can handle errors etc.. directly where they occur and don't have to pass them through the whole system. If you want to notify other modules of changes on the database (specifying the changed dataset or so), you can do so with a composite event. I think of the PRISM modules more as of complete elements, including UI and business logic and keep communication between them as little as possible.
2. Keep your business logic central and share it:
If you want to stick to your architecture, have singleton Model which is injected into the ViewModels. Manage your state in the model and have the ViewModels pick the pieces they want to provide to their view.
Hope I got he point, though...
Simple example:
I have VM with hierarchical item structure and I have designed View containing TreeView. Each tree node corresponds to data item related to the one in the Model.
GUI must respect user preferences and settings and store different parameters including whether each particular node is expanded or not. As long as every node relates to some data we need to tie View settings with the Model. I beleive it's not OK to define property IsExpanded in the class standing for the Model.
So where should I store the settings so they stayed consistent with the data?
I believe it's not OK to define property IsExpaned in the class standing for the Model.
Why? Will there be occassions when the model is linked to two different tree-views?
If that is the case you can certainly create an "adapter view-model" that wraps your models and adds the property. Just be careful because that can technique can easily lead to a memory leak.
Otherwise, it is perfectly acceptable to put it right in the model, especially if that model is being used specifically to serve that view. As with all things, start with the simplest, most pragmatic approach.
I was in a similar situation, here's what I did to solve it.
Each ViewModel node had an IsExpanded property, which was bound to the TreeViewItem's IsExpanded property. I didn't want to persist the state of the tree by storing it in the Model in IsExpanded properties (it's to do with visual state right?). So instead, I had the VM tree structure generate a dictionary that stored the expansion state for each node against a string key generated from the node's state in the tree:
Dictionary<string, bool> treeExpandedStates
Each node in the tree had an ID, so in my case the key was something like "/1/3/7", but anything unique will do. This Dictionary was then serialized to a file on application close (in actual fact it was a SerializableDictionary). Then on application restart, it was deserialized and used to set the expansion state after the hierarchy had been loaded back up. This meant that the state of the tree was exactly as the user had left it, but nothing was stored in the Model.
I recognize the problem as a common dilemma in MVVM. I can look at it from two sides.
Approach A)
In the separation of View, Model, and ViewModel, what you describe resides in the Model. You write for example that it needs to be stored. That does not mean it is the same part of the model as the other model data.
Consider the following separation:
FolderModel - A model of the content or properties of a folder.
TreeNodeModel - A model of a users choices when exploring the tree view.
It might not be that easy to do a separation just like that, but the point is that MVVM is not meant to force you to stuff everything in the same place, and I do not think MVVM prevents you from keeping models for user interactions, the same way as you keep models for data content. Microsoft writes:
The data could come from a database, a Web service, a named pipe, a file on disk, or even carrier pigeons: it simply does not matter.
Why should not data for a data model be able to come from interactions of a user? :)
Approach B)
My usual approach to these dilemmas, though, is that properties like IsExpanded does mostly not need to be stored between sessions. That way, a property in the ViewModel, with a default value instead of a stored value, suffices. :)
And if it needs to be stored, it does not need to be stored in the Model. The ViewModel is for logic for presenting model data. If the ViewModel wants to save its logic state, that does not have to be stored in the Model.
Summary
In my point of view, you can store it any of these ways without breaking the MVVM pattern.
Suppose I have a WPF/MVVM application for managing some hypothetical customers :).
Domain model contains an entity named Customer (represented as a POCO in code).
The main screen contains a grid, bound to a view model (CustomersViewModel) that loads its data from Repository< Customer>.
The main screen also allows to create new customers (and save it to the DB).
Suppose I need to implement 'add customer' use-case. The most obvious approach is as follows:
Present the user with a dialog window to be filled out with new customer data.
Handle 'Save' button click in the ViewModel.
Create customer (var new_customer = new Customer(..)) domain object using the data from the dialog (step 1).
Call Repository< Customer>.Save(new_customer) to save the new customer to the DB.
Reload CustomersViewModel with fresh data from the DB so that newly added customer is visible in the grid.
Personally I don't like this 'quick-and-dirty' way (because of need to reload the full list of customers from DB every time a new customer is added).
Can anyone suggest a better approach (that wouldn't require refreshing the customer list from the DB)??? I feel there gotta be some best practice for handling scenarios like that:) ).
Thanks in advance!
If the saving of the Customer is successful, why can't you just add that single Customer instance to your collection of customers? No need to re-load all customers unless the user explicitly refreshes the view (usually via a refresh button).
If you are loading the list in your view through a binding (to a list of customers) you can just add the new customer to that list and everything is alredy ;-)
I have a similar application where in the object is created in UI. I solve it by adding the object in VM and then syncing it with Model on click of Save button.
I am assuming you have a list of CustomerViewModel in CustomersViewModel to which the grid view is bound to. You can add a new CustomerViewModel object to the list in CustomersViewModel. While saving the ViewModel data back into the model, the model gets in sync with VM. No need to refresh VM back from Model unless somebody else apart from your app is changing the Model data.
You could create an ObservableCollection<Customer> and fill it with the customers from the database which you want to show in the View. When you add a new customer then add it to this collection as well as save it into the database. The CustomersView binds on the ObservableCollection and is updated automatically without the need to refresh the data from the database.
The BookLibrary sample application of the WPF Application Framework (WAF) shows how this can be done.
As I wrap my head around the mvvm thing, the view is the view, and the viewmodel is 'a modal of a view' and the model are the entities we are dealing with (or at least that is my understanding). But I'm unclear as to what and when the model entities are populated. So for example:
Lets say I have app that needs to create a new record in a DB. And that record should have default values to start with. Who is responsible for the new record, and getting the default values. Does this have anything to do with MVVM or is that part of a data access layer? Who calls the the viewmodel?
Or for existing records when\where are the records retrieved? And saved if altered?
Thanks
In an overly simplified answer, your ViewModel should contain the LOGIC for controlling what your View displays, as well as how it is allowed to interact with the Model or Data.
Events like Getting data, Saving and Deleting are intercepted through a Command mechanism and pushed into the ViewModel, where they can be tested. Handling 'Dirty' events are also the duty of the ViewModel. As for who Calls the ViewModel, you are entrusting the Calling to the Binding mechanisms available within WPF and Silverlight.
Within the ViewModel it is still about staying with best practices and ensuring that you have a DataAccess layer abstracting your Data Source and possibly using the Repository pattern to abstract that.
The life cycle of a ViewModel could be as simple as the following...
Constructor called by View
GetData method called by ViewModel Ctor
Data received and pushed into existing View databound ObservableCollection property
However since you will probably have a lot of moving parts within the Ctor of the VM, including the Data Repositories Interface you will probably want to work with an IoC. This will make the life cycle of the ViewModel closer to...
View/ViewModel (Depends if you are View or ViewModel first) is pulled out of the IoC
IoC Handles the pairing of the View-ViewModel (Convention based)
Data Repository is Injected into the ViewModel
GetData method called by ViewModel Ctor
Data received and pushed into existing View databound ObservableCollection property
This may seem like more steps, however with an IoC container you are really just calling a single method like IoC.Get(), and the rest of the steps are wired up automatically based on the conventions applied.
I use view-models to control loading (with defaults) and saving my models, and to create collections and objects that I use to bind to my views. This includes setting default values on my models.
State and Bahavior of your view is define in your viewmodel which means all events are declared here.
Who calls the the viewmodel?
it depends who needs it. you can call it in your view.
for existing records when\where are the records retrieved? And saved if altered?
saving and retrieving part is in your viewmodel.
For detailed explanation, visit this site.
My concept for MVVM in WPF is that we have a ViewModel for every Model in your application. This means that if we have Customer class (entity) then we will have CustomerViewModel. The CustomerViewModel will have all the properties which are necessary to represent a customer. The CustomerView usercontrol will be responsible for creating the UI for the Customer model.
Now, let's say that we are adding a new customer. So, we have a form which consists of FirstName, LastName etc. Do we need a ViewModel for this scenario. I mean all I have to do is to take all the input values from TextBox and create a Customer object and then save it to the database. Why should I bother creating a ViewModel for this scenario?
First of all, that is not the main purpose of MVVM, to "mirror" everything. The View should provide the means for a user input, and certainly not process calls to any of the database layers. The ViewModel should be a GUI-agnostic application backbone, and it definetly should handle the creating of customers.
That said, what you should do, is have a ViewModel which represents a workspace for handling customers, and not just a customer ViewModel. If you really want to save on a few objects being created, add to that workspace the possibility to create and add a new customer (not CustomerViewModel). That way, you can have a View of the workspace which has elements for each relevant/required property of the customer, and by invoking some command added to that workspace ViewModel, you could get the current values filled in those (data bound to ViewModel) View elements directly to the customer model.
Consider if you could probably drop the specific customer (and other Model) ViewModels if you refactor things a bit, it would be good practice to keep things from adhering blindly to a certain pattern without explicit cause.
Let's pretend for a second that there is no business model. The only thing you have is a view. If you were to model just that view, without any knowledge of what the data means elsewhere in the system, that is a ViewModel.
The goal of a ViewModel is to, well, model the view it backs. This is a different goal than modeling the idea of a customer in your business domain. To say you will have have one ViewModel per business entity, then, is to say you will have one view per business entity, which leads to run-of-the-mill data-focused UI.
In your particular case, think about the customer edit view. It has fields that correspond to a customer's properties, and thus seems like a natural fit for binding to a customer directly. However, where on the customer object is the "Submit" action modeled? Where is the "Cancel" action modeled? Where is it modeled that field X is an enumerated value selected from a list?
How about the password? If persisted as a binary hashed value, does the view know how to hash its text? What if the system has password strength requirements?
The ViewModel is the mortar between the business model and the UI. It takes concerns from one and translates them into terms of the other. It is the point at which all the above issues are addressed. To say a ViewModel isn't necessary is to ignore its necessity.
You don't need to have a separate ViewModel for Add, you only need a single ViewModel which should do Edit and Add scenarios. If you can delete the record from the edit page than that ViewModel should also have the ability to delete. Your ViewModel should reflect the functionality your View exposes regardless of data.
I think you should reconsider having a single ViewModel for each model. I like to think of ViewModels as normalizing behavior inserted of data. By having a ViewModel for each Model class you will run into architecture issues sooner or later. I look at the application from top down overview, what is my UI trying to accomplish and from there I will get to the ViewModel and eventually I will get to my DataFactory and how the ViewModel maps down to data is almost always not 1 to 1 except for the most simplistic Views. If you try to map 1 to 1 you will have bad UI or your data will not be normalized very well.
The Stack we have here is:
View
ViewModel (Controls everything the user can do in the view, wraps properties from our POCO's)
DataFactory (Maps our POCO's to Entity Framework objects and CRUD)
POCO's (Business Logic, all rules and validation)
Entity Framework (Model, Data Access)
One note here is that ViewModel contains properties from multiple POCO's!
We inject the DataFactory through StructureMap and Unit test with xUnit along with Moq.
To answer you second question I would create a separate view only view to drop in as a user control. But you should still have a CRUD ViewModel in you app that encapsulate all that functionality in a user friendly way.
Thanks.
One reason for this VM abstraction is for testability. Another reason why you want a ViewModel is because it's basically a Data Transfer Object that might be a combination of fields from multiple models in a single container that is more relevant to your current view. Yet another reason to have VM is to take advantage of WPF two ways binding capabilities.
Using your regular model (plain POCO), you can update the View when your model change, but since your model does not implement dependency properties (most likely), you won't be able to take advantage of updating your model when the value in WPF control changes. Which mean you have to manual add a handler and do the copy this value from this control back to the model kind of thing.