I'm looking for a simple way to link a view to a viewmodel and then to Entity Framework through databinding.
Can someout out there give me some pointers. What I'm looking for is a very simple implementation that would allow the view to automatically list all the contents of for example a one field table and for changes in the view to be propogated back to the database through EF.
AAfter spending a long time looking I'm still searching for a way to do this and any help would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Technically using a ViewModel means you don't actually bind to your entities. Your ViewModel classes should have everything on them that is needed by the view (and yes, this can cause what feels like duplication, but it's for the greater good), and therefore you don't even have this problem.
You can ease the pain of duplication by implementing something like AutoMapper to avoid the legwork of "left to right" coding where you're just copying properties across.
If you are binding a list, consider having an EmployeeListViewModel that has a property of type IList<EmployeeViewModel> on it, so that you're still not binding your entities directly to the view. This is useful because you can then reuse that EmployeeViewModel for a single-record detail view.
Related
I am making a WPF Datagrid with lots of related columns. When you change X, Y should be X + Z. Etc. My first idea was to do this in the ViewModel properties with INotifyPropertyChanged. But I see that this also can be done with WPF triggers.
IMHO
If I do it with ViewModel/INotifyPropertyChanged there will be a problem with the first time initializing, where you do not want these rules to execute. I guess I could come around this by setting the private variables in a constructor.
The WPF trigger solution seems to be more complex and much more difficult to test.
Question
Are there any advantages letting WPF triggers do the job?
You've asked a bit of a subjective question here without much possibility of a definitive answer. However, I'm going to give it a try.
In my opinion, I would always manipulate data in the view model, for two main reasons:
Data manipulation = business rules and that belongs in the view model and not the view
You have access to every property of the data item(s) and every method in .NET in the view model, but access to very little in a Trigger.
I hope that helps in some small way.
I often hear a Model must be wrapped by a ViewModel that the View is not coupled to the Model/not aware of it.
With MVC it is common to bind the View to the Model... nobody complains so what ?
I am frightened of creating all that wrappers and doing nearly only duplicating property stuff.
In some cases you don't need to, just as you don't need properties in many cases but can get away with public fields.
But your model should mirror the domain structure and logic, while a view model mirrors the UI structure and logic. At least, as far as I understood it. Those two are not necessarily the same and each one can change independently from the other.
You should always apply a pattern to your individual problem, and modify it in areas where it does not apply. Just because the pattern implies the usage of a view-model, doesn't mean you necessarily need a view-model in every scenario. In the case that your model exposes all of the needed properties and no further abstraction is needed, maybe a view-model is unnecessary.
However, in many cases the view-model will eventually be of great use and far easier to maintain than adding extra properties to the model. Consider this carefully before binding directly to the model.
The ViewModel is used to only pass the data that you really need to a view.
When you use the model, instead of the viewmodel it is possible that you use data that came directly from the database.
When using the model the wrong way, it is possible to edit data in the database that you don't want to edit.
It is safer to use a ViewModel.
One point which didn't seem to come up (directly) yet is that ViewModel can easily support data that should never even be in the model such as the text typed in the search text box or selected list items in case these values are needed in commands or further data bindings and passing them as parameters every time seems like too much trouble.
But as stated already, if you are confident that all the data you need is already available in the Model, go ahead and do away with the ViewModel.
One common scenario where ViewModels come in very handy is when Enum values should be displayed. In my eyes, a ViewModel is the perfect place to convert Enum values to user-friendly representations. You could even introduce a localization step in your ViewModel.
Furthermore, ViewModels can simplify some other scenarios. However, as you said, they can also duplicate a lot of code. That said, you could create a ViewModel with a Model property which allows to bind directly to the properties of the Model class. Now if you later realize that you need some conversion step, you can still add that property to the ViewModel and bind to that property.
But I think in most cases it makes sense to use a ViewModel from the beginning because it might be hard to introduce it in a later development stage.
There is no problem binding directly to a Model from your View where possible.
What you will find though is very quickly you run into a situation where you need to model things your view needs that aren't in your Model.
Given you never want to corrupt your Model with View concerns, you are left with no choice but to create a ViewModel.
It depends on may indicators: e.g. if your model is provided by EF there's no point in exposing it to your View - why the heck the View would need all model's method/properties and tons of stuff (not mentioning data security) But if your model is really simple and you feel, that you're not going to expand/change it much by and VM, there's nothing on the way to use it just like that :)
You might as well ask, "What's wrong with putting all the functionality of my program into one giant class?" On the one hand, there's nothing wrong; it can be made to work. On the other hand, everything is wrong: if your program is one big ball of wire, you have to straighten all of it out in order to change any of it.
Look at a Windows Forms programmer written by a beginner. You'll find all of the business logic in the buttons' Click event handlers. What's wrong with that? Don't you want that logic to be executed when the user clicks the button?
This is essentially what you're proposing doing within the world of WPF. Will it work? Sure. For trivial projects, it may even work well. You're accumulating technical debt, though, and when the time comes, you'll have to pay it off by refactoring your code into something manageable.
In my WPF MVVM application my model is a complex tree of Model objects wich constantly changes at runtime. Model instances come and go at runtime, change their position within the tree and of course change their many properties. My View is almost a one-to-one visual representation of that tree. Every Model instance is in 80% of the cases also a node in the tree.
My question is now how I would design the ViewModel around this? My problem is that there are quite a lot of different Model types with each quite a lot of properties. If I understood MVVM corretcly the view should not communicate with the Model directly so this would mean that I would have to create a ViewModel type for each Model type and have to rewrap each property of the Model type in the ViewModel.
Also the ViewModel would need to "bind" to the propertychanges of the Model to pass it along to the view (using wpf datatbinding). I would need some factory that creates and introduces a ViewModel instance for each Model that appears anew and I would habe to dispose each ViewModel instance when the corresponding Model disappears. I end up keeping track of all instances I created. It is unbelievable how much bloat code is generated dues to this double wrapping.
Is this really a good approach? Each entity and each property more ore less exists twice and I have a lot of extra code keeping Model and View in sync. How do you handle this? Is there a more clever way to solve this?
Does anyone have a reference/sample implementation for this that does it better than I do?
I think you may run into trap of paradigm if you follow this path. MVVM is nothing more than a pattern, which simplifies development in WPF world. If it doesn't - don't use it or revise your approach. I wouldn't spend 80% of my time just to check the "Using MVVM" field.
Now back to your question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are looking at MVVM from opposite direction: you don't need Model to ViewModel one-to-one correspondence. Usually you create ViewModels based on your View first, and only then on a Model.
Generally you look on a screen mockup from graphic designers, and create corresponding ViewModel, which takes all necessary fields from the Model, wraps/modify/format/combine them to make View development as easy as possible.
You said that your View is almost one-to-one visual representation of the Model. In this case it may have sense to create a very simple ViewModel which exposes root object of your model-tree, and let View consume model directly via that property. Then if you need some View customizations or commands processing you can delegate that to ViewModel.
Sorry for very vague answer. Maybe if you ask more specific question we could dispel the confusion :)...
This will probably be obvious but I can't find the best way.
I want to show the user's ToDo's in a listbox. These ToDo's are in the database and consist of an Id, UserId and Description.
The user logged in to the app.
How can I retrieve the ToDo's for that certain userId and set it up for binding to the listbox?
I was trying with an ObjectDataProvider but I cant figure out how to use that in combination with nonstatic stuff (like my _dbService, userId, language, ...).
Are the only options to make all those things static versus binding in the code behind?
If so, this means that ObjectDataProvider isn't very useful, no?
I find a lot of examples of it being used with a hardcoded parameter but I hardly see any situation where I'd need such a functionality..
I do all my WPF using the Model-View-ViewModel pattern. I've given you one link there but Google will give you loads. MVVM seems to be the standard pattern for WPF. This project is probably more complicated than you need but it is well-written and brings home the use of MVVM.
Basically, you create a Model of your data. In this case, you'd probably create a simple class (I'll call it ToDoItem) with properties Id, UserID and Description. Use your preferred mechanism to get a collection of these from the database. Link to SQL, Entity Framework, a standard query, whatever.
Then you have your ViewModel - you have an instance of the ViewModel for each instance of the Model: the VM has a reference to the M and 'forwards' properties to it. The ViewModel is what you use to manipulate the model.
Then you have your View - this is the UI. You set the DataContext of the View to be the ViewModel and then your bindings automatically bind to the ViewModel. Your View just ends up being the things you can see. All of the work gets done in the ViewModel. This means it's very easy to test.
So, when you click on a button in your View, the bindings pass this onto a Command in your ViewModel which manipulates the Model.
The UI is also a View with a ViewModel. So, your UI VM might load a collection of Models from the database and stick them in an ObservableCollection. The ListBox items collection would be bound to this ObservableCollection.
It's hard to explain all of this in a post like this. Read a couple of articles and see what you think. I'm still quite new at this, too, but I believe my reading about MVVM has paid off.
Hela Thomas, Tom here from Orbit One :)
MVVM is the way to go. I'm on my 4th project and WPF really shines if you use mvvm. You already tried MVC (or MVP as we did on recy*tyre) and that's a nice separation of concern.
MVVM takes it a step further since the viewmodel knows absolutely nothing about the view.
The view binds to the viewmodel, so it has a reference to it (2 way, super powerful and works beyond the typical MS demo). The viewmodel is just a poco and is a representation of your view, data + behaviour. Once you dig this paragraph the cool term mvvm will have no secrets.
I see if I can come up with a small demo. Maybe I'll have time later.
What I will come up with is a view (xaml, file 1) that binds to a viewmodel (file 2, a poco class, not to be mistaken with code behind). The model can be whatever you like (service layer or directly to the repositories). Using the power of 2 way binding we will bind to an observable collection meaning that if we add/delete/... something to the collection the view will pick it up without us putting energy into it.
My first 2 wpf projects was done with Caliburn Micro (see codeplex) which is a powerful framework based on conventions. It shields you away from hardcore wpf (creating tour dependency properties yourself mainly) and you can create something relatively fast without fully understanding wpf. That's a downside of itself but it worked for me. As of project 3 I started taming those dependency properties myself and it will make you a better wpf developer.
I see the question is from October.. did you find a good solution?
Sorry if this has already been asked, but I just want to make sure that I'm doing this right.
If I have a domian object that has say 10 properties on it. I have a grid on my main form that I want to show the pretty much all the the properties from the model.
I created a viewmodel to wrap the domain object to show in the gridview but then I have to expose all the properties again. I just feel binding straight against the model through the viewmodel feels dirty and defects the purpose a bit.
So for example I don't really like this:
{Binding DomainObject.Property}
where DomainObject is property on my view model.
So my main question is, should I expose all the properties on the model through the view model just to bind it to the grid?
EDIT: Just for added information the domian objects are LINQ-To-SQL objects, so I don't think they implement INotifyPropertyChanged but I'm not sure.
Some people will say it doesn't matter, others say it does. I'm in the latter camp, for these reasons:
You increase the dependencies of the view, as it now depends on the data model, not just the view model.
You require the designers need to know the properties and structure of your data model.
You create more work for the (almost inevitable) refactoring when you decide you need a layer of indirection for formatting, validation, or whatever it might be.
As Thomas pointed out, data models often don't implement change notification
Yes, it's a little more work, but I believe it's worth it to reduce decoupling, maintenance headaches, collaboration with designers, and correctness.
PS. If you find yourself in this situation a lot, you might consider an implementation of ICustomTypeDescriptor that wraps any data object and exposes its properties with change notification. That way your VM can extend this generic wrapper until you decide you need to pull properties out for purposes such as formatting and validation.
If you need change notification on the properties and the model doesn't implement INotifyPropertyChanged, then you need to create new properties on the ViewModel. Otherwise, it's probably not a big issue to bind directly to the model : the MVVM pattern is just a guideline, you can bend the rules a little if necessary...
I think it is a matter of personal preference. I happen to believe it is perfectly fine to expose the Model in a single object from the ViewModel. Recreating all the properties of the Model in the ViewModel just results in a bunch of extra code.
However, this only works provided your Model implements change notifications so the data binding works.