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.
Related
Iam using MVVM and have a main window with Close button and it is bound to the MainWindowViewModel's ICommand command.
In the main window there are two UserControl1 and UserControl2 which is bound to viewmodels UserControlVM1 and UserControlVM2 respectively.
UserControlVM1 and UserControlVM2 has command named CleanUp that will clean up the resources.
So Whenever the close button is clicked on the mainwindow, i wanted to call the CleanUp command of Usercontrol viewmodels. How can we do this in XAML or any other alternatives?
A common implementation for communication between ViewModels is the Mediator Pattern which describes an object common between your ViewModels providing a Publish/Subscribe model. When an Event of interest occurs in an object it publishes a notification to the Mediator, one or more objects that are subscribed to that particular Event of the Mediator are then notified of the Event occurring in the original object.
Mediator Pattern Example
You should consider a view model first approach, in which case the MainWindowViewModel would have references to the UserControlVM1 and UserControlVM2, and can call the CleanUp methods directly.
You should consider using an MVVM framework if you're using MVVM.
You could inspire yourself from a technique from Prism's developer guide.
In Patterns and Practices' Prism Framework, CompositeCommand allows several ViewModel to register their own command against a single CompositeCommand, so that all can be called with one single call.
You'd also need this global class that is referenced in all your ViewModels, but not necessarily a static one since you don't have loose coupled modules.
I want to use WPF with MVVM pattern in my project, but i am confused about some points regarding MVVM pattern. Please help me to clarify these points.
I am using DataTemplate for ViewModel, but i want specific control to be keyboard focused.
How can i focus specific control after ICommand Executed.
How can i move focus to not validated control.
Is there any way to separate DataTemplate depending on ViewModel property value.
How can i validate all controls before ICommand
Is there any other better approach to ask any confirmation from ViewModel with MessageBox
Regards,
Mitan
I highly suggest you have a look at caliburn (or caliburn.micro) which exposes different UImanager interfaces so your viewmodel can do such things without losing unit testability.
To set the foucs on control use codebehind. MVVM doesn't say don't not use codebehind.
Write a method on code behind to set the focus and call this method from view model.
Example
public interface IView
{
void setFoucs();
}
//Code Behind
public class MyWindow : Window, IView
{
public void SetFoucs()
{
MyControl.Focus();
}
}
public class ViewModel
{
public IView _view { get; set; }
public ViewModel(IView view)
{
_view = view;
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
_view.SetFocus();
}
}
For question no 4 - I think your are looking to selecte specific datatemplate based on your some logic. To achieve this use DataTemplateSelector class.
http://www.switchonthecode.com/tutorials/wpf-tutorial-how-to-use-a-datatemplateselector
Question 1:
Not clear what you mean/want. Generally the TabIndex controls the focus flow in your application, with silverlight it is however not as easy to configure as in windows forms. Silverlight also does a good job at setting the tab sequence automatically.
However, you should note that all controls inheriting from Control receive, by default, the focus. This incudes some controls that may be used as a container for other controls (e.g. ContentControl). This behaviour might lead to some unwanted effects. Use the IsTabStop property to remove these controls from the tab order.
Question 2:
Well, it depends on how decoupled you want your application (the more decoupled the better). #pchajer's approach is one way of doing it, however it couples the view to the view model and this - although abstracted via an interface - is IMHO not a good idea for the following reasons:
Usually the view model is pulled from a locator in order to allow for blendability. Now if I have to use code behind to pass the View to the ViewModel this might break it. Better would be if it could be injected into the ViewModel via a constructor parameter and this would then break the locator.
The code becomes less testable as it now depends on the view. To make it testable you need to inject an implementaion of IView into the ViewModel, and this breaks the locator again.
Therefore, I would advise you to use Messaging to send a message to your view once the Command is complete. Then you can set the focus in the message handler. However, be aware that your might have to use the Dispatcher as the message handler could run in a separate thread.
Question 3:
You could capture the BindingValidationError on the control and then set the focus. Again be aware of possible threading issues.
Question 4:
Not sure, but if you mean that you want to use different DataTemplates based on whether a property has a certain value or not a TemplateSelector might help you. See http://www.switchonthecode.com/tutorials/wpf-tutorial-how-to-use-a-datatemplateselector.
Question 5:
The controls are validated when the property change event is fired, usually on the lost focus event. Your Model/ViewModel can implement IDataError to do the validation, and your can access this value from the CanExecute method associated with your command. However, you should try to keep the code in the CanExecute method as quick as possible as this method is called quite frequently.
Question 6:
You can implement your own Window that provides a custom layout. However, using the message box is a lot simpler. Again you should think of using messaging or a dialog service (e.g. http://blog.roboblob.com/2010/01/19/modal-dialogs-with-mvvm-and-silverlight-4/) to decouple your View and ViewModel. In fact there is even a DialogMessage in MVVMLight.
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
I’m building a WPF application using MVVM pattern (both are new technologies for me). I use user controls for simple bits of reusable functionality that doesn’t contain business logic, and MVVM pattern to build application logic. Suppose a view contains my user control that fires events, and I want to add an event handler to that event. That event handler should be in the view model of the view, because it contains business logic. The question is – view and the view model are connected only by binding; how do I connect an event handler using binding? Is it even possible (I suspect not)? If not – how should I handle events from a control in the view model? Maybe I should use commands or INotifyPropertyChanged?
Generally speaking, it is a good MVVM-practice to avoid code in code behind, as would be the case if you use events in your user controls. So when possible, use INotifyPropertyChanged and ICommand.
With that said, depending on your project and how pragmatic you are, some times it makes more sense to use the control's code behind.
I have at a few occasions used something like this:
private void textBox1_MouseDoubleClick(object sender, MouseButtonEventArgs e)
{
MyViewModel vm = this.DataContext as MyViewModel;
vm.MethodToExecute(...);
}
You could also consider Attached Command Behaviour, more info about this and implementations to find here:
Firing a double click event from a WPF ListView item using MVVM
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.