I have a complex application that consists of an Application, containing many modules, each containing many views. The behaviours of my views may throw exceptions.
Sometimes I want to handle exceptions on the view that created them, sometimes in the parent module, sometimes in the grand-parent application.
The concept of RoutedEvents seems like a sensible way of approaching this problem, but I'm not entirely sure how to go about that.
Does anyone have any examples or links they can share that demonstrate what I am trying to acheive?
Thanks
Mark
Although Silverlight contains the RoutedEventHandler and RoutedEventArgs, unfortunately the concept of "routed events" as seen in the desktop WPF framework is not the same.
Today it's kept for source and API compatibility, and in the future, maybe it could be supported.
What this means is that, in the meantime, you may be able to do a little extra work and still accomplish this by
at the Application level, hooking up your own unhandled exception handler code, perhaps create and name the type "AdvancedExceptionManager" or whatever, and design a simple API on top of that to allow things to subscribe and process any exceptions and bubble it up.
at the module level, working with the global/Singleton unhandled exception handler code, subscribe and unsubscribe to "handling" the global exceptions, and canceling further processing, for instance.
Let me know if you need more information on how to go about this. It would help to know how your "modules" are constructed or designed.
This might be interesting for you:
"RoutedEvents implementation for Silverlight 3 including WPF compatibility"
http://sl3routedevents.codeplex.com/
Related
I am writing a WinForms based IDE-style application. As part of that application it loads plugins which implement an interface called IFeature. Features are loaded by the main IDE framework via MEF, and then asked to instantiate an instance of Control, which is then added to a tab page to form the main working surface for the plugin. So far so good.
I'm now working on trying to protect the IDE from badly implemented plugins, and I am out of good ideas on how to do that, exactly. If, for example, a plugin is a button which throws an exception, then the IDE framework code is not involved in that call-stack at all, so there is no place for me to inject a try-catch. I have hooked onto the AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException and Application.ThreadException events, which provide a top-level protection against exceptions thrown in that manner, but I was hoping to be able to catch them with some context so that the exception could be tied to the IFeature instance that was responsible for the problem.
I did have the idea of creating a class derived from Control - and then over-riding all sorts of methods and implementing try-catch - but that
a. Seems clumsy.
b. Wouldn't protect against controls which in turn over-ride the method.
c. Would prevent any non-custom controls as being used (for example, Panel)
Are there any other methods I can use to provide closer-to-the-cause protection for my framework, or am I stuck with the handling the very broad scope events as above.
Thanks
Matt
In general I would not burden myself too much with this.
Just tell the plug-in developers that when you catch an exception that their control let slip you will remove all references to the control.
It is too hard to do anything else because you will have to envision everything a control could do wrong.
For a non-UI plugin I would kill the appdomain.
Removing all references might not be as safe and that's probably why many programs that allow UI plugins do not allow the UI to be drawn by the plugin but instead draw the UI for the plugin based on what the plugin suggests through an interface.
We were building out the next version of an in-house thick-client application using WPF/Prism (Composite Application Library). As we were nearly done with the client our team was put under new management and shortly thereafter:
We were then directed to drop the Prism framework to keep things simple. This includes not using any type of Inversion of Control.
We were directed to build out the WPF application without using MVVM or similar; and more along the lines of a traditional WinForm application. The idea is that if a developer sees a control in Visual Studio’s designer view, then (s)he should be able to click on the control and see exactly what it's doing without having to traverse through a view-model (or similar).
We have now been tasked with building out the WPF application using one primary Window, use a Frame Control to contain the content, and use a Ribbon outside of the frame for the menu items. Reason we were provided to use Frame Control:
a. We will show a view in the Frame with a Page (not a user control) and then load the page in the Frame.
b. When a new view is to be shown in the Frame, the current view (Page) will be closed/disposed and the new view (Page) will take its place in the Frame.
c. When a developer looks at the Page in design view, (s)he will be able to click on any control and see exactly what is being done.
Given the restrictions of 1 and 2 above, we’d like to present another method of building out the application that:
Can be presented as an alternative to using the “Frame Methodology” (item 3 above) but still provides the same type of functionality.
Does not use MVVM (see #1 and #2 above).
Provided the direction we’ve been given, any suggestions as to an alternative we can present? I’d request that the responses be kept on the professional level and thank you in advance.
I'd personally try to argue to use Martin Fowler's Presentation Model. (That's a joke, btw...)
Basically, you're being given a restriction that says "Use WPF, but don't use any of the features that make WPF usable." It really sounds like your requirements are such that you would be much better off explaining, reasonably, the advantages of patterns like MVVM.
It sounds like the weird requirements are really boiling down to this:
The idea is that if a developer sees a control in Visual Studio’s designer view, then (s)he should be able to click on the control and see exactly what it's doing
If that's the main issue, and the reason you're avoiding MVVM and other similar patterns, I would seriously take the time to educate the management. Looking at a Command, by name, instead of an event, by name (which is what you see in the designer) is really no more difficult.
However, in a large scale application, the separation of concerns is key. Even a properly designed Windows Forms application requires a clean separation of concerns - but with event based programming, this becomes much more difficult, especially from the designer. If you try to develop a large scale, clean, application using an event approach, you'll have event handlers, but those event handlers will all eventually need to delegate their work to a separate component.
This is actually adding an extra level of effort, from an understandability and maintenance point of view, on top of what you get with MVVM. With MVVM, you only look to the ViewModel, which is very discoverable.
BTW - The "rationale" for using a Page instead of a UserControl doesn't make any sense. You can do exactly the same thing you're describing with UserControls... The only reason to use a Frame and Page is if you want to take advantage of navigation, in which case, you can't dispose the old pages directly (or they get regenerated constantly). Also, the navigation tools probably wouldn't be used with a ribbon - the two conceptual models are quite different.
There are criticisms of MVVM which may be applicable to your project; however having unreasonable dictates of programming methodology is always a recipe for disaster.
One of the reasons that we have frameworks and spending time building layers and separation is to avoid the coding mess that always results when you can "simply click on the button in visual studio to see the code that is being executed".
There may not be a way of achieving what you've been asked to do without something similar to MVVM, because anything that has an architecture may well be labelled as being too similar.
However I have been using a system for many years that provides simple inter-object plumbing currently called Emesary you may want to read my C# .NET Emesary walkthrough.
But basically it allows my buttons to be implemented thus:
private void addButton_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
GlobalTransmitter.NotifyAll(new Notification(NotificationType.CreateRecipe));
}
This may be an answer to your problem. It's under hyped, small and so simple but it just works well.
I've achieved a solution to the second question by using a Window, a user control for the ribbon bar (the user control contains the listview), and another user control for the Frame part. This second user control obvious is built using other user controls using a very simple view class. All views and controls are connected using Emesary.
As a school project I had to develop a WPF client which allowed for multiple people to make use of it at the same time. And I used Pages. My verdict: Save yourself a huge amount of effort, and use UserControls instead.
Sometimes the Page Navigator (which you'll use to scroll through) tends to bug out and cause you a lot of problems. Maybe it was my crappy coding, but who knows?
Though I must say, the control being called "Pages" is somewhat misleading... I went "Eureka!" when I found them, and swore at them thereafter.
I totally agree with #2 (MS bigs take note!). It would be cool if you could double-click a Control and it would take you straight to its command (or event if its command is lacking). However till then, make sure that you organize your Views and ViewModels in separate folders.
Having a dual screen (or a very wide one) will allow you to have two instances of VS open on the project, one focused around the View and the other around the ViewModel (my personal choice was having Expression Blend on the View).
Although not a very big application, I managed to convert my project to proper MVVM (ie. ViewModel for every UI element, RelayCommands and Mediator) in a matter of days, so once you understand it it's not too complicated to implement. Plus, there are tools out there (such as Josh Smith's RelayCommand and Marlon Grech's Mediator - totally free, by the way) which make MVVM half as difficult, and twice as powerful.
Using WPF without MVVM is like trying to eat rice without a fork. You'd be better off using WinForms if you're not going to take advantage of what WPF has to offer. My 2 cents.
I wish I could say your management is totally wrong.. but I cannot say that as it will not be the most accurate truth. I guess that the main reason to the changes you described is either because the new manager is not comfortable with the concept of MVVM being the new messiah of UI development or/and another reason could be the cost of educated sophisticated developers vs. cheap developers which can be instructed to get the things done as fast as possible, a concept which is widely known as lean development.
So, putting all I wrote so far under "not what you asked for", here is what I suggest:
you can still use object oriented pure approach, meaning you can have a model object which already have method to show UI information. so every object will be a window derived object, that way you will loose on SOC but you still going to be OOP/OOD.
But LOL, The next phase will bring you to seperation of model from view in order to not repeat the same code in many derrived windows which relay on the same data... so your management will endorse MVC/MVP as good solution .. and the distance from it to MVVM is kinda of short if they want WPF.
Conclusion: you will have to teach your manager why it is better to go for MVVM, unless the project is very short.
Using the Composite Application Guidance tools from Microsoft, It seems as if there is no mechanism to allow you to query your modules ViewModels and ask if any of them have unsaved data. This is a problem because, and I'm guilty of this as well, you cannot stop the application from terminating when there is unsaved data...
I had thought about creating an interface called IApplicationEvents and have an event on there called ApplicationExiting. The thought being that each module can subscribe to the event and, when fired, can send back a "Cancel=true" or "Cancel=false" to say whether or not to allow the application exiting.
Curious to find out what others may have done in this instance, and to see what possible solutions there are in the community to solve this issue.
Thx.
There are a lot of choices here.
First off, I wanted to clarify a little nomenclature... typically your Views or ViewModels contained within your Module assemblies are the things with unsaved changes, not the Module itself. The Module is responsible for instantiating any views necessary at the start and contributing back to the shell during Initialize and that's typically it, so when you attack this problem, you'll want to focus on your views/viewmodels and not the Module classes.
Options off the top of my head:
Adopt a complimentary framework like Caliburn that has support for application events like this (as well as some MDI events like ViewClosing, that kind of thing). It has builtin support for Prism (http://caliburn.codeplex.com/)
Use a composite command. Your views or viewmodels will register themselves with a composite command elsewhere (CloseCommand, which you declare statically for your application) and every open view will have its CanExecute and Execute methods fired so that you can both vote in the closing of the application and also react to it, should it happen anyway. CompositeCommands are a feature of Prism. (See: Commanding Quickstart)
I think those are probably the most elegant. There's a few more options but these live in the best harmony with existing conventions.
Hope this helps.
So I'm planning on writing an application that is largely a windowless application. There will be windows for user interaction, but only at the request of the user. Otherwise the application sits in the system tray and runs a timer, executing some logic every minute or so. My question is this: As far as I can tell, I would put all the related logic in App.xaml.cs (starting the timer, executing the logic at each interval), but for some reason this seems wrong to me.
The app will have a system tray icon that users can interact with to get details, adjust settings, etc., but otherwise the app just sits there and does what it does. Is it appropriate to put all the code in the code-behind for the App.xaml class? I don't know why, but it seems as if I shouldn't, and there should be somewhere else, but I can't really think of anything.
I've never written an app like this before, hence my ignorance. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
James
Even with applications where most interaction is done through windows it's usually a bad idea to put all the code in the code behind. Interactions are often initiated eventhandlers in the code behind but you can put your code in classes you create yourself.
The same goes for applications that do not show a user interface most of the time. Most of the actions will be initiated from the App.xaml.cs but that doesn't mean all the code has to live there. You can encapsulate timers in their own classes that can kick off other code to do work for example. Divide your code up along lines of responsibilities, a window class does UI stuff, domain logic goes into other files etc. That will enable you to create more maintainable applications.
It doesn't sound like the code belongs there, and at most just a call to start the timers.
What does sound like a perfect fit for your issues, is the M-V-VM (Model - View - ViewModel) pattern. As you noteded, it also will 'feel' more correct then attaching logic to your code behind. Using MVVM you can separate your sparse UI into a View, and your code can exist separately in the Model and ViewModel.
I would recomend using the toolkit here, as it also contains good overview documents and a sample you can digest as you create your own solution. Laurent Bugnion has also released a MVVM starter toolkit that you could use to get started.
Also, here is some good stuff to get you started on actually setting up your controls in the system tray.
We are looking at creating a WPF UI that runs across multiple AppDomains. One of the app domains would run the application while the remaining AppDomains would host a series of user controls and logic. The idea, of course, is to sandbox these User Controls and the logic away from the main application.
Here is an example of doing this using MAF/System.AddIn. What are some of the experiences other have had with this? How does this solution handle RoutedEvents/Commands that might occur inside one user control and do these get properly serialized across AppDomains? What about WPF resources? Can they be accessed across AppDomains seamlessly?
Old question, but nonetheless: You will need to have multiple UI threads - one per AppDomain. Create them like this:
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
var app = new Application();
app.Run();
});
thread.Name = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName;
thread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
thread.Start();
The biggest challenge is then that you cannot send FrameworkElements between AppDomains (they are not MarshalByRefObject), but you can use the FrameworkElementAdapters.ViewToContractAdapter() and ContractAdapterToView() methods to work around this limitation. See the FrameworkElementAdapters MSDN page for more details.
Then, once you have this in place, the biggest problem IMHO is that you cannot lay anything on top of the FrameworkElement from the "remote" domain (the classical "airspace problem"). See this thread for more info about this.
I answered a simular question here and edited it for WPF also, you can use an intersting property of how the compisition engine operate's to tail-coat a dispatcher Pump, into one of the rendering contexts. It's a really light weight option.
Also, I'm guessing you know about the enterprise library and unity?
There is a WPF application block so using that pattern is not too painful ;) But don't they say, no pain no gain?
There's also CAB (Composite UI Application Block), ties into unity. The WPF SDK folks have crafted a Silverlight & WPF platform. (a.k.a Prism).
Oh right, also, you asked about Resources? I prefer to load reasources manually in the Application class. One thing I've realized, say you have a ResourceDictionary in a sub-folder and you are loading up MergedDictionaries in that ResourceDictionary. So, if in your Application class, you load "my-res-dir/MergedDictionaryLoader.xaml" (by code or xaml), ALL FUTURE LOADS OF MERGEDDICTIONARIES ARE LOADED FROM "my-res-dir".
Sort of insane if you ask me, I would think that as the process current directory has not changed, you should specify "my-res-dir/foo.xaml" for all your additional directories. However this is not the case (I do not believe this is documented anywhere at least very well and should be considered a bug imho).
So remember, WPF resource dictionary loading is going to be based off of the directory from which the current XAML is in. So you specify Source="foo.xaml" from within your "my-res-dir/MergedDictionaryLoader.xaml". I've even played with the URI pack / absolute syntax, however I've never found that too be much more intuative.