I'm very new to databinding, and so far have only had luck databinding to element properties in the GUI, or by binding to an ObservableCollection to display lists of data. Now I want to do something different.
I have a method that takes an index and returns a List of doubles, i.e.
List<double> GetValues( int index);
I have a GUI where the user selects the index from a combobox, and then several textboxes need to have their text updated with the values in the List. I actually have a thread running that caches all of this data, because I have UI elements in different places that consume and display the same information. So I figured, why not use databinding? The problem is, I have yet to find a good example online that explains how to take the index from the combobox, call the GetValues method, and then bind the resulting information to all of the textboxes -- all from XAML.
The closest article I've found is http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163299.aspx. Most of the articles I've read talk about using the Source attribute, but then say, "well, the easiest way is to just use StaticResource, so we'll show you that method".
How can this be accomplished? Would it be advisable to just go back to the easy way of doing this entirely from code-behind?
The problem you're having is that you're trying to bind to the results from a function, and you may very well complicate things by trying to implement data-binding on something so simple from the code-behind. I'd recommend doing this from the code-behind.
That said, for the simplest and most useful approach, you need to have actual properties in your class to bind to, which you need to update when the index changes. Depending on how you pass the data around, this could reduce the code-behind, or just create more.
Here's an example of what you could end up with:
// Assume 1 of your textboxes displays a weight. Here's the property declaration:
// Disclaimer: Not compiled or tested at all.
public static readonly DependencyProperty WeightProperty = DependencyProperty.Register(
"Weight", typeof(double), typeof(MyClass), new PropertyMetadata(0.0));
public double Weight
{
get { return (double)this.GetValue(WeightProperty); }
set { this.SetValue(WeightProperty); }
}
// Here's an example of setting the property:
private void ComboBoxSelectedIndexChanged(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
List<double> values = myObject.GetValues(comboBox.SelectedIndex);
this.Weight = values[0];
}
// And in your XAML, assuming you've given your Window the name myWindow:
<TextBlock Text="{Binding ElementName=myWindow, Path=Weight}"/>
This can be useful if you plan on updating the Weight property in multiple places and want the TextBlock to always show the correct value.
On the other hand, if your properties will only update in the SelectedIndexChanged function and you don't need the values outside of that function, you may as well have just set the value yourself and reduce the unnecessary overhead:
private void ComboBoxSelectedIndexChanged(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
List<double> values = myObject.GetValues(comboBox.SelectedIndex);
txtWeight.Text = values[0].ToString();
}
Related
I just discovered than I can do the following:
var button = new Button();
button.SetValue(TextBlock.TextProperty, "text");
var text = (string)button.GetValue(TextBlock.TextProperty); // text is "text"
While the above example is a bit unrealistic, it does show that I can attach a regular dependency property onto another object. It doesn't have to be a an attached property (TextBlock.TextProperty is not registerd with DependencyProperty.RegisterAttached().
This bares the questions why are there attached properties in the first place? The only difference I can see for now ist that I can't attach regular dependency properties in XAML. But that's about it. Are there any other differences?
Update:
To make it more clear, the below code works and looks pretty close to an attached property from the end users perspective:
public static class AttachedPropertyDeclarer
{
public static readonly DependencyProperty TextProperty = DependencyProperty.Register(
"Text",
typeof(string),
typeof(Button),
new PropertyMetadata(default(string),OnTextChanged));
private static void OnTextChanged(DependencyObject d, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
// do something when text changed
}
}
...
button.SetValue(AttachedPropertyDeclarer.TextProperty, "text");
var text = (string)button.GetValue(AttachedPropertyDeclarer.TextProperty);
Compare this to the attached property way:
public static class AttachedPropertyDeclarer
{
public static readonly DependencyProperty TextProperty = DependencyProperty.RegisterAttached(
"Text",
typeof(string),
typeof(AttachedPropertyDeclarer),
new PropertyMetadata(default(string),OnTextChanged));
private static void OnTextChanged(DependencyObject d, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
// do something when text changed
}
}
The only effective differnce to an attached property here is that I have to declare the owner of type Button whereas in a attached property it would usually be AttachedPropertyDeclarer. But this only needs to be done if I need a changed event handler (i.e. OnTextChanged).
Regarding your example, you have not as you say, attached a regular dependency property onto another object. All your code has achieved is to store a string value in a Dictionary along with a reference to your object. That does not make it an Attached Property - importantly, you cannot access that string value from the Button directly, as there is no Text property on a Button.
What your code does is actually very similar to this:
Dictionary<object, object> values2 = new Dictionary<object, object>();
var button = new Button();
values2.Add(button, "text");
string text = values2[button].ToString();
Now to answer your question:
The main reason to declare an Attached Property is in order to add a property to a type that you didn't declare, thereby extending its functionality.
A great example of this would be to add a SelectedItems property to the ItemsControl or ListBox class. In doing so, we extend the current, or default functionality of the class. Another good example would be declaring an Attached Property that automatically brings added items into view (again in an ItemsControl or ListBox class).
UPDATE >>>
According to your comments, you seem to be refusing to accept the differences that I have outlined... you said:
There is literally no difference from the end users perspective except that I can't use it in XAML.
Firstly, do you not think that this is a huge difference?.. you won't be able to use it for data binding for a start. Furthermore, you keep saying that you can attach a property to a type that you haven't declared using a DependencyProperty, but you are 100% incorrect. You can reference an Attached Property directly in both code and XAML, while you can't reference what you are calling your attached property directly in either XAML or code.
All you are doing is storing a value in a Dictionary and you certainly don't need the overhead of a DependencyProperty to do that. There really is no comparison between doing that and declaring an Attached Property. From the Attached Properties Overview page on MSDN:
You might create an attached property when there is a reason to have a property setting mechanism available for classes other than the defining class.
Note the following part: a property setting mechanism
Adding values into a Dictionary is not a property setting mechanism. So again, you lose the ability to use your pretend Attached Property in Styles, Animations, Triggers, etc.
To clarify this situation for once and for all, you can develop a simple test project. Implement the IList SelectedItems Attached Property for a ListBox that I mentioned (you can find online tutorials for this) and then do the same using your pretend Attached Property (if it is even possible). The difference in the simplicity of development bewteen the two will clearly show you why you should use an Attached Property instead of a regular DependencyProperty.
If you look closely at dependency property identifier, all DP's are registered with class DependencyProperty and we pass the Owner class type and property name at time of registration.
Sample:
public static readonly DependencyProperty IsSpinningProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register(
"IsSpinning", typeof(Boolean), typeof(OwnerClass));
At time of registration it creates some unique hash code combining property name and owner class type to represent each DP uniquely.
So, when you set value for that DP on some object like in your case on Button, code flow is like this:
First it will get the unique value generated at time of registration of property and add the key value pair in private dictionary named _effectiveValues declared in class Dependency Object with Key set to unique hashcode at time of registration and value being the value set by user.
Note - No written documentation for this on MSDN but verified this by peeking into source code using reflector.
So, when you set the value from code behind it will work like I mentioned above because it does not validate before adding value in the dictionary if it belongs to that type or not and fetching value will get you the value from dictionary.
Not sure but might be constraint is there in XAML only where WPF guys enforced the type check. Sadly there is no written documentation for this on MSDN.
Attached properties are discovered, when you want to have control over an existing control, but dont want to extend it. A pretty good example is, there is no way to bind BlackOutDates property in XAML for WPF DatePicker. In that case you can use an Attached Property to attach a custom functionality to map the BlackOutDates. This suits good in MVVM, since attached properties provided way for binding in XAML.
public class BlackOutDatesAdapter
{
public static List<DateTime> GetBlackOutDates(DependencyObject obj)
{
return (List<DateTime>)obj.GetValue(BlackOutDatesProperty);
}
public static void SetBlackOutDates(DependencyObject obj, List<DateTime> value)
{
obj.SetValue(BlackOutDatesProperty, value);
}
// Using a DependencyProperty as the backing store for BlackOutDates. This enables animation, styling, binding, etc...
public static readonly DependencyProperty BlackOutDatesProperty =
DependencyProperty.RegisterAttached("BlackOutDates", typeof(List<DateTime>), typeof(BlackOutDatesAdapter), new PropertyMetadata(null, OnBlackOutDatesChanged));
private static void OnBlackOutDatesChanged(DependencyObject sender, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
var control = sender as DatePicker;
var list = (List<DateTime>)e.NewValue;
foreach(var date in list)
{
control.BlackoutDates.Add(new CalendarDateRange(date));
}
}
}
Binding in XAML will look like this,
<DatePicker VerticalAlignment="Center"
Width="200"
local:BlackOutDatesAdapter.BlackOutDates="{Binding BlackOutDates}"
DisplayDate="{Binding DisplayDate}" />
In the callback of property, you can do your own mapping of adding the dates to DatePicker. For more information, please read this post.
I have a DataTemplate that needs to set the IsSelected property on an ItemsControl's container (such as TreeViewItem, ListViewItem or ComboBoxItem). However, it doesn't know the type of the container until it's passed in to it. Since IsSelected isn't part of a common base class or interface, nor is it a common dependency property registered with AddOwner to the various classes (Duh, MS!!! WTF not?!!), I ended up with this mess...
if (container is TreeViewItem) {
(container as TreeViewItem).IsSelected = true;
return;
}
if (container is ListBoxItem) {
(container as ListBoxItem).IsSelected = true;
return;
}
if (container is ComboBoxItem) {
(container as ComboBoxItem).IsSelected = true;
return;
}
...which not only is verbose, but requires me to modify it if I ever use a different ItemsControl that uses different container types! Not good!
Sure I could enhance it a little by putting this logic in extension methods (damn C# for not having extension properties!!) called IsContainerSelected and SetContainerSelected and putting them on UIElement, then moving the above code inside there, but it's just making the outside neater. The inside is still a mess.
My only other thought is to use reflection and look for an IsSelected property and use that if found, but I'm always leery of doing things like that. However, since there isn't a common interface or base class, I'm not really sure I have a choice here.
For context, I'm sharing a complex data template between several different ItemsControls and the template itself has controls that can receive focus such as checkbox and textbox. However, when those controls receive focus via the mouse, the underlying container item doesn't get selected and whatever was selected before remains so.
My workaround is to use an attached behavior that utilizes the preview events to intercept the focus before it happens and set the underlying item accordingly, which works great when I've hard-coded TreeViewItem or ListBoxItem, etc., but I don't want to hard-code the type since the control shouldn't really care. So that's the part that breaks down.
Ugh!!! Why didn't MS just register the same attached property or at least create an ISelectableContainer interface?!!
I have read your answer, and it does make sense - in your case, IsSelected may obviously be part of the ViewModel, and that seems to be the best solution in your case.
But you asked for further explanation about C# dynamic features. C# 4.0 now has some dynamic functionalities, which allow us to create code that would only be possible in languages like Python, Ruby or JavaScript. This, of course, has its cost - a dynamic abuse would not only make code slower, but also more confusing - because you would lose compile-time errors and IntelliSense.
I have written a simple example so you may understand it better:
public class ClassOne
{
public int SameProperty { get; set; }
}
public class ClassTwo
{
public int SameProperty { get; set; }
}
public class ClassThree
{
public string SameProperty { get; set; }
}
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1() {
InitializeComponent();
}
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) {
dynamic wrapper = new ClassOne();
wrapper.SameProperty = 5;
wrapper = new ClassTwo();
wrapper.SameProperty = 15;
wrapper = new ClassThree();
wrapper.SameProperty = "Now it is a string!";
// And now a run-time error...
wrapper.AnotherProperty = "And this won't work...";
}
}
As you can see, wrapper has no definite type whatsoever - a dynamic reference will allow any kind of method or property invocation, since the actual binding will only be made during run-time, not compile-time.
Of course, this example is very naive, but sometimes dynamic code may be useful - it is a good option to avoid explicit reflection, or to avoid long if...else statements based on type (like your snippet above).
I'm not sure that I fully understand your problem, but you could try adding an IsSelected boolean to your model and then binding that property against the Item control it's contained in. That way, you just have to worry about setting that property in the model, regardless of the container.
Per #mdm20's answer, he suggested modifying the ViewModel, which is of course normally what you want to do. However this is a purely view-related issue (keyboard navigation-related) and isn't reflected in the ViewModel at all, nor in this case should it be.
But that gave me an idea! Since I'm using a custom control to render the item in whichever items control (via its data template) it's being added to, that control naturally does have multiple instances (all of which are pointing to the same ViewModel instance), which is what I want!
Therefore, rather than adding the IsSelected to the ViewModel, I added it to the user control itself, then I just bind to that within the data template for the respective ItemsControl which I do know about. I can then set the IsSelected property in the code-behind for the user control as needed (i.e. during the preview mouse events, etc.) and the underlying ItemsControl responds appropriately! Works great and keeps the ViewModel clean since neither the model, nor the viewmodel need to know about it. The IsSelected remains purely in the UI which is where in this particular case it should be!
I have a complex WPF control that for some reasons (ie. performance) is not using dependency properties but simple C# properties (at least at the top level these are exposed as properties).
The goal is to make it possible to bind to some of those top level properties -> I guess I should declare them as DPs.(right? or is there some other way to achieve this? )
I started reading on MSDN about DependencyProperties and DependencyObjects and found an example:
public class MyStateControl : ButtonBase
{
public MyStateControl() : base() { }
public Boolean State
{
get { return (Boolean)this.GetValue(StateProperty); }
set { this.SetValue(StateProperty, value); }
}
public static readonly DependencyProperty StateProperty = DependencyProperty.Register(
"State", typeof(Boolean), typeof(MyStateControl),new PropertyMetadata(false));
}
If I'm right - this code enforces the property to be backed up by DependencyProperty which restricts it to be a simple property with a store(from functional point of view, not technically) instead of being able to calculate the property value each time getter is called and setting other properties/fields each time setter is called.
What can I do about that? Is there any way I could make those two worlds meet at some point?
//edit
I guess I have to tell you a little more about what I want to do and what my limitations are. So:
I have TabControl that is bound to a collection of ViewModel(I'm using MVVM pattern) objects. Every tab is meant to be an editor for one object of that collection. Objects can be of different types so I have multiple definitions each with a different DataType property. Now I have that complex WPF Control that I want to use as a part of one of those DataTemplates. If I use usual TextBox I can simply bind to its Text property, but I can't do the same with Text property of that custom control simply because its Text property is not a dependency property.
In this scenario I have :
no direct access to the control itself nor to its events
no code behind file that I can use to do that kind of thing
I can see however a dirty solution -
In the Window class I would have to subscribe to CollectionChanged event of the collection that is bound to the TabControl.
Whenever an item is added to that collection use ItemContainerGenerator to obtain a copy of I suppose TabItem and use it to find the right copy of 'complex control'
Regiter items handlers to 'complex controls' events to do the job
This is wrong because:
this is agains MVVM - I have to play with tab control to do the job instead of doing it in the ViewModel class
this couples in an unwanted way the view and viewmodel
I think you are mixing up Dependency Properties and implementing INotifyPropertyChanged on your classes.
You don't need your property to be a dependency property, you just need your class to implement INotifyPropertyChanged and call OnPropertyChanged whenever the state of your object changes in a way that would affect the value you want to expose to binding.
So let's say you have a property Sum that you want to bind to. The Sum property simple adds two other properties (or fields, or whatever) together. When anything happens that affects the Sum calculation, you want to notify that the Sum value has changed, so the any controls bound to Sum get updated.
public int Sum => Value1 + Value2;
public int Value1
{
set
{
// changing this affects "Sum", so I need to notify that the binding should update
_value1 = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Sum");
}
}
public int Value2
{
set
{
// changing this affects "Sum", so I need to notify that the binding should update
_value2 = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Sum");
}
}
It seems to me that you've been saddled with a WPF user control that was built by someone who didn't intend it to be used with data binding. I would assume that this is for one of two reasons: a) there's some logical reason that you shouldn't be able to bind to this property, or b) the original author of this control didn't know what he was doing. You haven't provided enough information for me to know which of those two conditions is the one you're really working under.
But in general, the reason you can't expose calculated properties for binding is that calculated properties generally don't have a setter. It doesn't make sense to set a property whose value is calculated.
If there are other properties whose values need to be updated when this one changes, the right approach (or at least the one consonant with the design of dependency properties) is to handle those updates in the dependency property's callback function, which is kind of what the callback function is for.
How would I set focus to a TextBox without specifying the name for that TextBox? At the moment I am doing the following
<Window FocusManager.FocusedElement="{Binding ElementName=Username}">
<Grid>
<TextBox Text="{Binding Username}" Name="Username" />
</Grid>
</Window>
Is there any way of doing this without specifying a Name for the TextBox. As I believe in MVVM having a Name element usually means bad design?
As I believe in MVVM having a Name element usually means bad design?
No, it’s not.
The MVVM pattern is not about eliminating all the code from code-behind files.
It is about separating of concerns and increasing the testability.
View related code like focus handling should remain in the code-behind file of the View. But it would be bad to see application logic or database connection management in the code-behind file of the View.
MVVM examples with code in the code-behind files without violating the MVVM pattern can be found at the WPF Application Framework (WAF) project.
The simple way is to set focus in UserControl_Load event
this.txtBox.Focus();
txtBox.Focusable = true;
Keyboard.Focus(txtBox);
MVVM doesn't mean you can not put code in the code behind file.
In fact, Do not let any pattern restrict you to find the best way of coding.
I have documented a "pure MVVM" way to do this in my answer to a similar problem. The solution involves using Attached Properties and a framework for passing interface commands from the ViewModel back to the View.
Code behind should be avoided when possible, even more when it is in the view. I had the same problem and for simple purposes the best answer is this one as it only modifies the view:
WPF MVVM Default Focus on Textbox and selectAll
If you are looking to set again focus as you interact with other UserControl elements, this will do the trick:
Set focus on textbox in WPF from view model (C#)
I lost 3 days figuring this out, I hope this can help.
As I believe in MVVM having a Name element usually means bad design?
No, it’s not.
According to Microsoft MVP's not only is naming controls is WPF bad practice, it is a quite substantial hit on performance. Just wanted to pass along some words of wisdom
I agree with Sean Du about not letting any pattern totally restrict you, I think performance hit should be avoided whenever possible.
Actually, I found the boolean attached property solution a bit dirty and clumsy in the way that you have to find a twist in order to be sure that the next set of your view model property will really raise the attached property changed event.
A simple and more elegant solution is to bind your behavior on property type for which you can be sure that the next value will always be different from the previous one and thus be sure that your attached property changed event will raise every times.
The most simple type that comes into mind is the int. The solution is then the usual combination of :
The behavior:
public static class TextBoxFocusBehavior
{
public static int GetKeepFocus(DependencyObject obj)
{
return (int)obj.GetValue(KeepFocusProperty);
}
public static void SetKeepFocus(DependencyObject obj, int value)
{
obj.SetValue(KeepFocusProperty, value);
}
// Using a DependencyProperty as the backing store for KeepFocus. This enables animation, styling, binding, etc...
public static readonly DependencyProperty KeepFocusProperty =
DependencyProperty.RegisterAttached("KeepFocus", typeof(int), typeof(TextBoxFocusBehavior), new UIPropertyMetadata(0, OnKeepFocusChanged));
private static void OnKeepFocusChanged(DependencyObject d, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
TextBox t = d as TextBox;
if (t != null)
{
t.Focus();
}
}
}
The view model property:
public int InputFocus
{
get { return _inputFocus; }
private set
{
_inputFocus = value;
Notify(Npcea.InputFocus);
}
}
The use of the attached behavior:
<TextBox v:TextBoxFocusBehavior.KeepFocus="{Binding InputFocus}"/>
And finaly the use of the property in the VM:
public void YouMethod()
{
//some code logic
InputFocus++;//<= the textbox focus
}
Some REALLY bad minded spirits might say that this logic is bound to the int32 size limitation. Well... I will just choose to ignore them right now ;-)
I am trying to use databinding to bind data to a Silverlight toolkit chart.
I will have one to many sets of series so cannot determine how many series i need before hand.
I also want to stick to a databinding model and not resort to programmatically adding these series as many other controls bind to this datasource.
I found an article on the web by Jeremiah Morrill that showed a solution for this very problem.
Jeremiah's solution
Now this worked perfectly at first, until I tried to update my databinding's datasource values while the application was running, and this would not reflect. As if it was not subscribed to the PropertyChanged event.
I even bound the same data to a datagrid next to the chart, and the datagrid reacts as expected changing everytime my databinding's datasource values change.
In my ChartHelper from Jeremiah's solution, i have the following dependency property
public static readonly DependencyProperty SeriesSourceProperty =
DependencyProperty.RegisterAttached("SeriesSource",
typeof(IEnumerable),
typeof(ChartHelper),
new PropertyMetadata(SeriesSourceChanged));
The SeriesSourceChanged event is called when my application starts up.
However, when my DataBinding's datasource values change, this is not called again.
So questions are as follows:
How can I capture the PropertyChanged notification with this solution?
Is there something I can add to the DependencyProperty above to capture this?
Is it something i need to add to the chart or series to achieve this?
I have been racking my brain over this for several days, so any help or suggestions will be much appreciated
Thanks!
The SeriesSource type should be ObservableCollection instead of IEnumerable. Then you do something like this:
private static void SeriesSourceChanged(DependencyObject o, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
var sender = o as YourType;
var newCollection = e.NewValue as ObservableCollection<DataSetViewModel>;
if (newCollection != null)
{
newCollection.CollectionChanged += new NotifyCollectionChangedEventHandler(sender.OnCollectionChanged);
}
}
private void OnCollectionChanged(object sender, NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs e)
{
}
I never did find a solution to this problem and ended up using a chart control from visifire
I found this much easier to customise but never found a neat way of using databinding to achieve this and ended up with a more programattic approach.