I have begun creating a wpf mvvm app. It seems a vital ingredient to the ViewModel is a bunch of ICommands to have a loosely coupled way of allowing the view to interact with the viewmodel.
My question is this, why can't I bind directly to a method?
I have used Josh Smith's RelayCommand implementation of ICommand that allows you to inject delgates into an ICommand object, but really, is there some easier way to allow a button push to call a method in the viewmodel?
I'm new to MVVM, I believe I need some enlightenment
You can't bind directly to a method because Button (for example) doesn't have a property that accepts a delegate. Instead, it has a Command property of type ICommand. A RelayCommand (aka DelegateCommand) is just an ICommand that wraps delegates.
I see no technical reason why it wouldn't be possible for the view to bind to specific methods on the view model by way of a markup extension:
<Button Command="{ViewModelMethod SomeMethodName}"/>
However, this would be slower and would increase the coupling between the view and view model. If the view knows only about a property on the view model of type ICommand, the implementation of that command could change completely (or methods could be renamed) without the view being aware.
I completely disagree.
The speed of invocation bears no relevance: commands are user interactions, they never require speed.
Argument about coupling is flawed too. How come {Binding MyProperty} is not coupling but {ViewMethod MyMethod} is?
Requirement of having specially crafted 'Commands' to be wrapped around methods is a silly one. Commands might be useful implementation under the cover, but we already have methods in C# and replacing them with something big and bulky is not right.
And that thing about MarkupExtension and Binding, it really is difficult. But it can be done. Actually, it is done, you can have a look at MethodCall project on CodePlex:
http://methodcallthing.codeplex.com/
You can use binding to choose 'this' for the method, and can use binding to fetch arguments. And all those are live, i.e. being calculated at the time the command is invoked. Another bonus feature is push-out result of method call, you can use binding for that too (OneWayToSource).
ICommand gives you CanExecute, which is needed for control enabling. A simple delegate does not. ICommand is the way to go.
Apparently Microsoft needed a Command to be something first-class, probably because they felt having the CanExecute was necessary for most applications. I disagree and think the CanExecute should have just been another DependencyProperty that you would bind to a property of your viewmodel, but hey, what do I know?
Possibly they also thought that there was a need to decouple the implementation of a command from the control's datacontext. Yet again this seems unnecessary to me because the logic should live near the data that is being operated on, as is a fundamental principal of OO.
Personally I avoid using commands in MVVM because of the mess you have to create to implement them. I just let the view's code-behind delegate events up to the viewmodel.
Due to the way in which the title of this question is worded, readers might arrive here looking for an alternative to ICommand, instead of just a way to bind a UI action directly to a method of a viewModel. (Which is of little value, since it leaves open the question of what to do with the 'CanExecute` part.)
The use of ICommand is problematic in and of itself because it is defined in Windows.Input, which means that in order to declare ICommands in your ViewModels you have to reference WPF and the kitchen sink from within your application logic, and once you have done that, any noob might notice that MessageBox and a vast array of other GUI functionality is available, and might start making use of it, resulting in a terrible mess of mixed application logic and presentation logic.
So, if you want to get rid of using System.Windows, then you need to get rid of ICommand, and if you want to get rid of ICommand, then you might be happy to know the following:
WPF (specifically, the XAML designer) does not require your viewModels to statically expose instances of the ICommand interface.
By statically here I mean that the designer does not need to be able to prove, during design time, using reflection, that your command objects implement the ICommand interface; instead, WPF checks at runtime to make sure that UI actions are bound to objects which do in fact turn out to implement ICommand.
So, in your viewModels (application logic) instead of the ICommand interface of WPF you can be using some Command interface of your own device, and all you need to ensure is that the class that you will be instantiating at runtime to implement your Command interface also implements ICommand to keep WPF happy. This way you can avoid including ICommand from within your ViewModels, and subsequently you might be able to avoid having to reference System.Windows in your application logic.
Related
I've been seeing tutorials where people are creating the methods like CanExecute in their code. I'm assuming they are doing this to help the reader understand how it all works. When I look up Command and ICommand it takes me to the ICommand class on MSDN that is used for Windows Store apps. Is there not a Command class for WPF?
The built-in implementation of ICommand in WPF is RoutedCommand (and its sibling RoutedUICommand). RoutedCommand works like this:
The Execute and CanExecute methods on a RoutedCommand do not contain
the application logic for the command as is the case with a typical
ICommand, but rather, these methods raise events that traverse the
element tree looking for an object with a CommandBinding. The event
handlers attached to the CommandBinding contain the command logic.
The problem with this is that these event handlers must be attached to the code-behind for your view, which is exactly what you do not want to do in MVVM.
Tutorials where you see CanExecute methods in code (and by that we really mean code outside the ICommand implementation) are using custom command implementations such as DelegateCommand and RelayCommand which are designed to "forward" their CanExecute/Execute logic to functions provided on the fly; typically, those are methods on the viewmodel that exposes the command.
These implementations are usually provided by MVVM frameworks (for these two examples the frameworks are Prism and MVVM Light respectively), but they are really simple (both are open source, grab the code and read it) and there's nothing stopping you from copy/pasting the code if you don't want the whole of the framework.
You could summarize the above as "there is built-in a command class in WPF, but it's not really useful in the context of MVVM".
I'm working on PRISM application with modules, MVVM and so on. I understand PRISM pretty good now and I understand value of MVVM. All those things good to deliver business value which comes from testability, "uniformity" and so on.
But now I'm stuck with certain interaction issues. I already spent hours and hours trying to see how I set focus in Silverlight via MVVM. All this additional behaviors, attached properties, triggers. It just seems like bunch of junk code with MVVM being root cause.
For example, I need to create Lookup control which is basically textbox with button and popup window. This control itself needs lot of focus control, it needs to overlay view over parent (popups) and so on. It seems to be pretty easy to create it with code-behind, stick it into separate library and move on. My business forms will use this control inside my nice MVVM PRISM.
So, question is.. Is it justified to use code-behind in isolated islands like controls and keep MVVM and TDD for actual code that brings business value?
Is there line where you say "MVVM is not going to be used here" ?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with using Code Behind providing that the code is related to view-specific properties, such as setting Focus. Your ViewModel should never need to know about or care who or what has focus, since that is a View-Specific concept.
Usually I build UserControls in two ways: they are either built for a specific Model or ViewModel, or they are meant to be generic and have their values provided by whoever calls them.
In the case of the former, such as if I wanted a SearchResultsPopup, I would build the UserControl expecting to have something like a SearchResultsViewModel as the DataContext.
For example, my UserControl would expect to find the following properties on it's DataContext, and would use them in bindings to build the View.
ObservableCollection<SearchResult> Results
SearchResult SelectedResult
bool IsOpen
ICommand OkCommand
ICommand CancelCommand
I could then use the UserControl like this:
<local:SearchResultsPopup DataContext="{Binding MySearchResultsVM}" />
In the later situation, where I am creating something generic which can be used by any Model or ViewModel, I would use custom Dependency Properties to provide my UserControl with the values it needs to bind to.
So in this example, I would have DependencyProperties for
bool IsOpen
ICommand OkCommand
ICommand CancelCommand
And my XAML would look something like this:
<local:GenericPopup local:GenericPopup.IsOpen="{Binding IsPopupOpen}"
local:GenericPopup.SaveCommand="{Binding SavePopupCommand}"
local:GenericPopup.CancelCommand="{Binding HidePopupCommand}">
<local:MySearchResultsView ... />
</local:GenericPopup>
In summary, your UserControl is either a reflection of your ViewModel (meaning it becomes a View), or it is provided values by the View. The ViewModel doesn't care either way.
I've recently been using the MVVM light toolkit for Silverlight 4.
I really like the EventToCommand behaviour that is included, it makes life a lot easier. One thing I've been wondering about is if setting PassEventArgsToCommand="True" is bad practice as it will tie a particular RelayCommand to a particular event in the View.
E.g. If my RelayCommand is defined as:
public RelayCommand<System.Windows.Input.KeyEventArgs> myCommand
Then this can only be called by a KeyUp, KeyDown etc event.
I thought the ViewModel was to have no UI knowledge (e.g. expose a boolean converter and use a converter to change that to a Visibility), doesn't PassEventArgsToCommand break this?
The ViewModel is the model for the view so where you are referring to state that the view must have or data it should represent then the ViewModel should handle it.
It could be reasonable to use the Visibility enumeration to represent what part of the view should be viewed as that is about the state of the view.
As for the KeyEventArgs, this has come from an action from the user and represents some state of the command which if you need to know what key was pressed then it is a reasonable expectation of the ViewModel to handle.
If you introduce more abstractions and complexities to remove this event arg then you might have future maintenance issues provided you can unit test it with this command.
The only time I would not use Visibility or KeyEventArgs or the like would be if I wanted to use the same ViewModel for other UI technologies. If this is your case then I would create the abstraction (although in my experience this is rare and would typically involve their own ViewModels anyway).
It might not be a good idea to pass the KeyEventArgs directly to your ViewModel if you want to unit test the ViewModel - i.e. you want to invoke a command that takes KeyEventArgs as a parameter.
The reason for this is that you can't instantiate KeyEventArgs in Silverlight (at least not as far as I could see) because KeyEventArgs has no public constructor in Silverlight.
This means you can't pass a key from your unit test. In this situation it may be better to map the specific key(s) to the command in your view / XAML rather than just using an EventTrigger for the KeyDown event.
See this as one solution - this provides a KeyEventToCommand class that allows you to map the keys to commands directly in the XAML.
http://mvvmlight.codeplex.com/discussions/252898
One way to decouple the ViewModel from the View is to use a "broker" - something that mediates the communication between the two. I have used MVVMLight's Messenger class to implement a message broker with good results.
HTH, indyfromoz
When implementing the ViewModel in a Model-View-ViewModel architecture WPF application there seem to be two major choices how to make it databindable. I have seen implementations that use DependencyProperty for properties the View is going to bind against and I have seen the ViewModel implementing INotifyPropertyChanged instead.
My question is when should I prefer one over the other? Are there any performance differences? Is it really a good idea to give the ViewModel dependencies to WPF? What else do I need to consider when make the design decision?
Kent wrote an interesting blog about this topic: View Models: POCOs versus DependencyObjects.
Short summary:
DependencyObjects are not marked as
serializable
The DependencyObject class overrides and seals the Equals() and
GetHashCode() methods
A DependencyObject has thread affinity – it can only be accessed
on the thread on which it was
created
I prefer the POCO approach. A base class for PresentationModel (aka ViewModel) which implements INotifyPropertyChanged interface can be found here: http://compositeextensions.codeplex.com
According to the WPF performance guide, DependencyObjects definitely perform better than POCOs that implement INotifyPropertyChanged:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb613546.aspx
The choice is totally based on your business logic and UI abstraction level. If you dont want a good separation then DP will work for you.
DependencyProperties will be applicable mainly at the VisualElements level so it won't be good idea if we create lot of DPs for each of our business requirements. Also there is a greater cost for DP than a INotifyPropertyChanged. When you design a WPF/Silverlight try to design UI and ViewModel totally separate so that at any point of time we can change the Layout and UI controls (Based on theme and Styles)
Refer this post also - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/275098/what-applications-could-i-study-to-understand-datamodel-view-viewmodel . The link has a lot of reference to Model-View-ViewModel pattern, which is very relevant to this discussion.
From an expressiveness standpoint, I thoroughly enjoy using dependency properties and cringe at the thought of INotifyPropertyChanged. Apart from the string property names and possible memory leaks due to event subscription, INotifyPropertyChanged is a much more explicit mechanism.
Dependency properties imply "when this, do that" using easily-understood static metadata. It is a declarative approach that gets my vote for elegance.
Dependency properties are intended to supports binding (as a target) on UI elements not as a source to data binding, this is where INotifyProperty comes in. From a pure point of view you shouldn't use DP on a ViewModels.
"In order to be the source of a binding, a property does not need to be a dependency property; you can use any CLR property as a binding source. However, in order to be the target of a binding, the property must be a dependency property. For a one-way or two-way binding to be effective, the source property must support change notifications that propagate to the binding system and thus the target. For custom CLR binding sources, this means that the property must support INotifyPropertyChanged. Collections should support INotifyCollectionChanged."
All dependency objects cannot be serialised (This could hamper the use of ViewModels and DTO (POCO)'s.
There are differences between DP within Silverlight compared to WPF.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221408(v=VS.95).aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc903933(VS.95).aspx
INotifyPropertyChanged when used also gives you the ability to add more logic in the code of your getters and setter of your properties.
DependencyProperty example:
public static DependencyProperty NameProperty = DependencyProperty.Register( "Name", typeof( String), typeof( Customer ) );
public String Name
{
set { SetValue( NameProperty, value ); }
get { return ( String ) GetValue( NameProperty ); }
}
In your getter and setter --- all you can do is simply call SetValue and GetValue respectively, b/c in other parts of the framework the getter/setter is not called, instead it directly calls SetValue, GetValue, so your property logic wouldnt reliably be executed.
With INotifyPropertyChanged, define an event:
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
And then simply have any logic anywhere in your code, then call:
// ...
// Something cool...
// ...
if( this.PropertyChanged != null )
{
PropertyChanged( this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs( "Name" ) );
}
// More cool stuff that will reliably happen...
This could be in a getter/setter, or anywhere else.
Is it really a good idea to give the ViewModel dependencies to WPF?
.NET 4.0 will have System.Xaml.dll, so you won't have to take a dependency on an arbitrary framework to utilize it. See Rob Relyea's post about his PDC session.
My take
XAML is a language for describing objects, and WPF is a framework whose described objects are UI elements.
Their relationship is similar to C#, a language for describing logic, and .NET, a framework which implements particular kinds of logic.
XAML's purpose is declarative object graphs. The W*F technologies are great candidates for this paradigm, but XAML exists independently of them.
XAML and the entire dependency system were implemented as separate stacks for WF and WPF, probably to leverage the experience of different teams without creating a dependency (no pun intended) between them.
I too had to consider this decision recently.
I found that the INotifyPropertyChanged mechanism suited my needs better because it allowed me to glue my GUI to an existing business logic framework without duplicating state. The framework I was using had its own observer pattern and it was easy to forward one level of notification on to the next. I simply had a class which implemented the observer interface from my business logic framework and the INotifyPropertyChanged interface.
With DP you cannot define the backend that stores the state yourself. I would have had to let .net cache a copy of every item of state I was binding to. This seemed like an unnecessary overhead - my state is large and complicated.
So here I found INotifyPropertyChanged better for exposing properties from business logic to GUI.
That being said where I needed a custom GUI widget to expose a property and for changes to that property to affect other GUI widgets DP proved the simple solution.
So there I found DP useful for GUI to GUI notification.
Dependency properties are the glue of custom control creation. If you are interested in using Intelli-sense to show your properties in the properties window at XAML design time you must use Dependency properties. INPC will never show a property in the property window at design time.
It seems that Dependency Properties should be used in controls that you create such as Buttons. To use properties in XAML and use all the WPF features, those properties must Dependency Properties.
However, your ViewModel is better off using INotifyPropertyChanged. Using INotifyPropertyChanged will give you the ability to have getter/setter logic if you need to.
I recommend checking out Josh Smith's version of a base class for a ViewModel that already implements INotifyPropertyChanged:
http://joshsmithonwpf.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/a-base-class-which-implements-inotifypropertychanged/
I think this is an excellent example of how to do a ViewModel.
I think DependencyProperty and INotifyPropertyChanged are used for two different things in Binding : the first for enabling a property to be a target of a binding and receive the input from another property (use {Binding ...} to set the property), the last when you want the value of a property to be used as the source of a binding (name in the Binding Path Expression).
So the choice is merely technical.
I prefer a more direct approach, which I blogged about in Presentation Model Without INotifyPropertyChanged. Using an alternative to data binding, you can bind directly to CLR properties without any bookkeeping code. You just write plain-old .NET code in your View Model, and it gets updated when your Data Model changes.
There is only one thing why to prefer a DependencyObject - Binding will work better. Just try an example with a ListBox and TextBox, populate list with data from INotifyPropertyChanged property vs. DependencyProperty and edit current item from TextBox...
If you want to expose properties to other controls you must use Dependency properties... But good luck because they take a while to figure out...
I've decoupled events in this WPF application in the following way.
What is the best way to continue decoupling?
Shell.xaml:
<Button x:Name="btnProcess"
Content="Process"
Margin="10"/>
Bootstrapper.cs:
public void Run()
{
Shell shell = new Shell(new Customer());
shell.Show();
}
Shell.xaml.cs:
public Shell(IPerson person)
{
InitializeComponent();
btnProcess.Click +=new RoutedEventHandler(person.Process);
}
Customer.cs:
public class Customer : IPerson
{
public void Process(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Button theButton = (Button)sender;
theButton.Content = "Customer processed.";
}
}
The above code successfully decouples the view Shell from the model Customer:IPerson so that I can swap in e.g. a model Employee:IPerson etc. which handles "Processed" in its own way. That was the first goal.
But now:
how do I decouple the Processed method from talking specifically to a Button, so that it could also talk to a MenuItem or a ListView which fires the event in the view and so that it doesn't even have to be an element at all that calls it, e.g. a unit test class?
how do I alter other elements of the view other than the sender (Button), e.g. how would I alter the status bar in Shell? I see two ways:
I could either build a container which holds all views and inject the container in the Customer upon creation, then the customer can look in the container and manipulate the calling view anyway it wants (although I would have to somehow match the view that sent the event and the view in the container as the same one)
I could somehow send the whole view (Window object) to the Model with the eventargs when firing the event, although the Model would need some way of knowing (via interface) what kinds of regions were available to manipulate at runtime
How would you continue this application in the direction of a more decoupled design?
What pattern is this actually, e.g. MVC, MVP, MVVM? I only see a view (Shell) and a Model (Customer).
How would a Presenter fit in?
How would a ViewModel fit in?
How would a Controller fit in?
I suggest you to implement your event handling using commands instead of classic events.
Its very easy in WPF because the command pattern is already implemented, and you can tell all of your UI inputs (button, menu item...) that their command is [name of your command] and handle all of them in one place.
Cameron MacFarland did a good job here, but I can add a little.
When following M-V-VM, the tools in your box for decoupling are data binding, commands, attached behaviors and interfaces. Data binding should be self evident. You've already gotten a good description of commands, but I'd suggest you avoid RoutedCommand and stick with an ICommand implementation. Attached behaviors are attached DependencyProperty's that subscribe to events on the element they are attached to, and in this scenario would be used to relay event handling to the ViewModel. Interfaces give you the greatest flexibility, but you have to work out how to pass the interface to the ViewModel. The best way to learn all of this right now is to Google and to look at existing M-V-VM frameworks. Here's a list of frameworks:
Prism/Composite WPF (http://www.codeplex.com/CompositeWPF). This one comes from the Microsoft Patterns & Practices group. Lots of good stuff here, but one of the examples of the three things above that you can learn from here is how to use ICommand. Prism includes a DelegateCommand that implements ICommand and simplifies using commands from a ViewModel in M-V-VM.
Caliburn (http://www.codeplex.com/caliburn). Recently released, one of the key things you can learn from this one is how to use attached behaviors, which this library uses for it's "Actions".
Onyx (http://www.codeplex.com/wpfonyx). Disclaimer: I'm the author of this one. This one hasn't been released yet, though the current alpha source is available. This one provides a novel solution to the problem of how to provide interfaces to your ViewModel.
As Chen suggests, i'd look into the Command pattern: Routed commands
A working example from which i learned a lot can be found on Jaime Rodriquez his blog: Southridge
how do I decouple the Processed method from talking specifically to a Button
Commands. Put a command in the IPerson interface and call that command from the Shell's xaml.
how do I alter other elements of the view
Properties and Binding. If you have a property showing the state (processed/not processed) then you can use binding to display that property directly in the xaml.
How would you continue
I'd head more down the MVVM path by creating a ViewModel between the Shell and the IPerson. The ViewModel is designed to have 1) The properties needed for bindings, and 2) any Commands that need executing. The ViewModel is designed to provide the UI with what it needs from the Model.
What pattern is this
Currently? Nothing. I see only two objects, the View and the Model. You don't have a Presenter, Controller or ViewModel.
For WPF I prefer ViewModel. See this question for more info on MVVM.