I have been getting more involved with WPF for about a year now. A lot of things are new and sometimes it is hard to get my head wrapped around it.
At the same time I am rereading the GOF Design Patterns book.
A few times I would stop in the middle because I would realize that a certain pattern is the very one used in some WPF functionality. Whenever such a realization hits me, I feel like my understanding of the related WPF principle just took a big leap. It's kind of like an aha-effect.
I also realized that I had a much easier time understanding Prism for example because the documentation does such a great job at explaining the patterns involved.
So here is my "question" (more like an effort):
In order to help us all to understand
WPF better it would be great if anyone
who also "spotted" a design pattern in
WPF could give a short explanation.
One pretty obvious example that I found is the Routed Event:
If an event is detected by a child
control and no handler has been
specified, it passes it along to its
parent and so on until it is finally
handled or no parent is found anymore.
Lets say we have an image on a button
that is inside a StackPanel that is
inside a window. If the user clicks
the image, the event will either be
handled by it (if handling code has
been specified) or "bubble" up until
one of the controls handles it. So
each control will get a chance to
react in this order.
Image
Button
StackPanel
Window
Once a control handles it, the
bubbling will stop.
This is the short explanation, for a
more precise one consult the WPF
literature.
This kind of functionality represents
the "Chain of Responsibility
Design Pattern" which states, that if
their is a request, it gets passed
along a responsibility chain to give
each object in it a chance to handle
it. The sender of the request has no
idea who will handle it which ensures
decoupling. For a more thorough
explanation follow the link.
The purpose here is merely to show how this (seemingly old 10+ years) idea found its way into our current technology and to offer another way of looking at it.
I think this is enough for a start and hope more parallels will be collected here.
Cheers, Thorsten
I don't think it is specific for WPF but the observer design pattern seems to be the foundation on which all event handling in .Net and WPF is based.
The observer design pattern is described as "Define a one-to-many dependency between objects so that when one object changes state, all its dependents are notified and updated automatically.". In .Net with the += operator you subscribe to such a change in state. Subsequently you unsubscribe with the -= operator.
I'd say CommandBindings are pretty important and fundamental to the way I develop.
WPF Tutorial - Command Bindings and Custom Commands
MSDN Overview
Related
I've thoroughly checked the custom controls topic, spent several hours looking into custom controls written by other people. I've written my own custom button, to feel it better. I've read all the google answers around the "why custom controls", "advanced custom controls examples" and such.
My question is, WHY?
Why would I (or anybody) go through 9 circles of hell to create his own custom control, when one can just adjust an existing control to his needs (using styles and templates). I actually didn't find any explanation on google, just tons of examples, mostly from people who sound even less educated than me.
I imagine there IS such need, when talking about some complicated DataGrid with, I don't know, every cell being a button or something (and still I believe I could do it with a regular DataGrid)... But I've not found anything more complex than a beautiful button. Is there nobody sharing a complicated code on the topic?
There are different levels of element customization in WPF, depending what class you extend from. Each has its own uses and is implemented differently. It is not clear from your question if you are asking about a specific type of control or about all of them in general. So, I will tell you what I think about different ones.
UIElement or FrameworkElement
Extending UIElement gives you the lowest level custom control where you have complete control over the layout and rendering. FrameworkElement is slightly higher level as it does most of the common layout stuff for you while also allowing you to override key parts of it. The main idea with these is that they do their own rendering rather than composing other elements together.
I have made a number of custom FrameworkElements over the years. One example is a ruler similar to one you might find in a program like Photoshop. It has a bunch of properties providing customization for how it is displayed as well as showing markers indicating mouse position relative to the ruler (and a number of other little optional features). I have used it in two different professional projects. I think the main benefit is that it is extremely easy to drop in and set properties/bindings on wherever desired. Build it once, use it over and over.
Control
Extending Control introduces the concept of compositing multiple elements/controls into one reusable component via control templates.
I have used this one less often, but still find it very valuable in the right circumstances. Again, the main benefit here is reusability. You create a control with properties that make sense for what you want to do, then hook up those properties to the properties of the controls in it's control template. Really, this is the same as applying a new template to an existing control, with the added feature of being able to define your own dependency properties. You also have the ability to perform custom logic in the control's code if you need to.
I may be misreading some of your text, but you seem to imply that making a custom control is considerably more difficult than making a control template for an existing control. I have found that the two are nearly identical in most cases using this approach, the only difference being whether you have a code behind you can use.
User Control
A user control is really only slightly different from a custom control practically speaking. Only, instead of defining a control template, you define the visual content directly.
This is probably the most common type of custom control. It is basically the standard method for making XAML based content in a WPF application. These can be reused like other controls, but are more suited for single use such as the content of a dialog or window or something else that is specific to a single application.
Some Other Control
You can also extend an existing control to add additional functionality to it. This way, you still get all the features the control offers and only have to implement the additional bit.
For example, I have a custom control called an AutoScrollRichTextBox that extends RichTextBox. So, it does everything a RichTextBox can do. It also has the ability to automatically scroll to the bottom when content is added to the text box (which it only does if the text box was already scrolled to the bottom before the addition content was added).
I could have implemented that feature as an attached property instead of an extension of the control (and maybe I should have), but it works, and I have used it in three different applications (as an output window and as a chat log). So, I am happy with it.
In the end, it really is just a matter of how self-contained, reusable, and easy to drop in you want a control to be. If there is already a control that does what you want, and you just want it to look different, then you should definitely use styles and templates to achieve that. However, if you want to make something that doesn't already exist, limiting yourself to using only styles and templates will make the implementation work harder and make the end result less reusable and more difficult to set up additional instances (unless all instances are identical).
The examples of making things like buttons that look different are not examples of what you should use a custom control for. They are just examples of how someone would go about making a custom control for the purpose of teaching the details of the process. If you actually want a customized button, just customize a button.
I'm wondering why MS decided to call OnPropertyChangedCallback instead of firing some kind of event.
Is there any rationale behind this?
To me, raising events inside OnPropertyChangedCallback seems to add more code to write, and doesn't seem to have much performance benefits.
But I'd like to know if there are some edge cases / usage benefits that I might have missed (preferably with code examples).
Thank you : )
Generally speaking MS use a convention that events should be raised by the method called OnEventName. See this article. Thanks to that every developer knows how to raise a given event and doesn't have to write his own code to do so.
It is a pretty simple code but there is no need to copy&paste it and clutter the source code. You have to remember that a given event can be raised in many places. It is true regardless if we talk about WPF, WinForms or any other technology.
By the way, I tried to find OnPropertyChangedCallback in Reference Source and I din't find it.
Me and my colleagues are investigating how to replace 3rd party WinForms controlls by our new UI controls in our large legacy codebase. Practically we would like to replace the 3rd party controlls in the inheritance chain. The 3rd party controlls are used dozens of places by subclassing the 3rd party UI controlls. We d like to perform this change as safety as possible, with minimal code change all over the solution. Do you have any experience how to start? Obviously the inheritance means strong coupling here, so i d like to find the less painful solution here.
Is the "branch by abstraction" concept applicable here?
This is a pretty subjective decision based on your team's understanding of the code base as well as workflow. The bright side is that you've already subclassed all the controls, so you've already done the tedious work of being able to provide whatever properties the code is looking for to compile.
Given that this is WinForms, this should be much more straightforward, since the control sizes and locations are set on the Control level. You need to worry about mapping properties/methods that exist in the old vendor's controls to your new controls and not as much about form layout. This might be straightforward for some controls and more complex for others (i.e. grids).
The biggest roadblock IMO is going to be handling the current design-time serialized logic in InitializeComponent. If you've created a property to map from old -> new, you're going to have to be careful that when the designer re-serializes everything after you open the form and modify something, you might not want to serialize both the old property and the new. As an example:
Old Vendor
this.myOldComponent.Data = this.dataSource;
New Vendor
this.myNewComponent.DataSource = this.dataSource;
In this case, you may consider creating a new property called Data on your subclassed new component so that the old code works without changing anything. Let's say you open the form in the designed and move the grid a few pixels, causing the designer to serialize the data. You might now have:
this.myNewComponent.Data = this.dataSource;
this.myNewComponent.DataSource = this.dataSource;
You can prevent serialization with attributes (good discussion on it in this SO question, but this is just an example of something you might hit.
I don't think there's really a pattern here to follow, unless you mean on the source control level, in which case I would say to absolutely create a new branch apart from your regular development one; who knows what kinds of roadblocks you may hit and you'd want to shelve your work for a bit.
Ultimately, you may decide that it's just best to suck it up and rip out the old components and put in the new, but as mentioned this is very subjective. It's situations like this that make me really love WPF and the MVVM model, since you could entirely rip out the UI and keep the business logic intact.
I’ve been having issues with the TreeView in WPF. This control makes it very hard to access the TreeViewItems it’s showing.
On several occasions I have worked around the need to access a TreeViewItem, for example I’ve accepted the fact that I’m not supposed to access a node’s parent via TreeView (and am supposed to instead keep track of the parent myself). I’ve been doing this for two reasons: first, it’s obviously extremely hard to get at the TreeViewItems, and secondly, I’ve been told that it’s hard because I’m not supposed to need them if I do things right.
However, this time I really see no way around this.
Basically, all I want is, given one of my viewmodel instances, scroll the tree view to it. This is trivial if I could just get the corresponding TreeViewItem.
Am I doing things wrong again by trying to get at the TreeViewItem, or would that be the right approach?
Take a look at Simplifying the WPF TreeView by Using the ViewModel Pattern article by Josh Smith. I hope it helps.
Admittedly this is not straightforward but you can probably still do this while keeping a separation which does not require you to access the TreeViewItems knowingly. The essence in WPF is binding as already noted by Kent Boogaart in your other question, here however you need to somehow deal with events. Your view-model needs to fire a BringIntoView event of its own while the view needs to react.
The easiest method might be to add a EventSetter on Loaded to make the TreeViewItems subscribe to said event on their DataContext which should be your view-model (if it isn't you can wait for DataContextChanged).
No, I dont see in what way accessing the items of a treeview is wrong.
I think the difficulties you are encountering are because you aren't seeing the treeview as it should be.
A leaf has a parent, but no children.
A node can have a parent, and can have children.
A node without a parent is a root.
Based on these principles (SourceMaking Composite pattern) you should be able to do whatever you want using recursivity. (in both XAML and code)
I’ve come to the conclusion that it can’t be altogether wrong. The first piece of evidence comes from Bea Stollnitz’s post about ListView: if one of the WPF developers explains how this might be done, it can’t be that wrong.
The other piece of evidence comes from this highly-voted question/answer: MVVM madness. MVVM undoubtedly has its benefits, but sometimes the cost of following MVVM is so high that it’s just silly following through with it, especially in a small one-man application. Do you really want to expose IsSelected and IsExpanded the way you’re supposed to?
As a result, I felt justified to try and figure out how to expose the TreeViewItem corresponding to an item with less effort from the developer, under the assumption that they will never need the more advanced features that resulted in TreeViewItems being this hard to access (like displaying the same ViewModels in multiple different controls... how often have you needed that!...)
I posted the result of this effort as an answer on another question.
I've made it a personal rule to inherit every UI control before using it. In a previous life I'd always considered this one of the less useful things you could do because the justification always seemed to be "I might want to change the font on all the buttons at once"... a motivation that never paid off... once... ever.
Two recent projects have changed my mind about the practice, though. In the first, we needed a consistent "ValueChanged" event so that we could easily implement a "dirty" flag on our forms without a massive switch statement to choose between a Textbox's "TextChanged" event, or a ListBox's "SelectedIndexChanged" etc. We just wanted one consistent thing to listen for on all controls, and subclassing the built-in controls bought us that pretty easily.
In the second project, every effort was made to get by with the base controls because the UI was expected to be pretty simple, but a few months in, it became obvious that they just weren't going to cut it anymore, and we purchased the Telerik control suite. If we had inherited all the controls to begin with, then changing our derived controls to inherit from the Telerik controls would have applied the changes for us globally. Instead, we had to do some searching and replacing in all the form designers.
So here's my question: What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of
Simply adding a Class, and making it inherit from a control.
Adding a new "Custom Control" and inheriting.
Adding a new "Component" and inheriting.
All three have the same effect in the end, you get a new type of Button to put on your forms. I've seen all three used by different people, and everyone seems to think that their way is the best. I thought I should put this discussion on StackOverflow, and maybe we can nail down a concensus as a community as to which one is the "right" way.
Note: I already have my personal opinion of which is "right", but I want to see what the world thinks.
If both 1 & 2 are inheriting, then they are functionally identical, no? Should one of them be encapsulating a control? In which case you have a lot of pass-thru members to add. I wouldn't recommend it.
Peronally, I simply wouldn't add extra inheritance without a very good reason... for example, the "changed event" could perhaps have been handled with some overloads etc. With C# 3.0 this gets even cleaner thanks to extension methods - i.e. you can have things like:
public static AddChangeHandler(
this TextBox textbox, EventHandler handler) {
testbox.TextChanged += handler;
}
public static AddChangeHandler(
this SomethingElse control, EventHandler handler) {
control.Whatever += handler;
}
and just use myControl.AddChangeHandler(handler); (relying on the static type of myControl to resolve the appropriate extension method).
Of course, you could take a step back and listen to events on your own model, not the UI - let the UI update the model in a basic way, and have logic in your own object model (that has nothing to do with controls).
I use composition. I simply create a new UserControl and add the controls I need. This works fine, because:
I never use that many properties anyway, so pass-through methods are kept to a minimum.
I can start with a naive approach and refine it later.
Properties for look and feel should be set consistently across the site. Now I can set them once and for all.