Im currently working on a project where I want to the user to be able to chose between two layouts (list and grid) at runtime. I was searching for examples in the UI5 documentation (Sample Apps) and on GitHub, I did not find examples for how to to this or best practice examples. So I thought about how I could achieve this behaviour and had multiple ideas, but somehow none of them feels like doing this would be best practice.
Idea 1 - Destroy the "old" controls and generate the new controls inside the Controller
My first idea was to destory the controls I do not longer need. For example if the user wants to switch to the grid layout, the list and every control related it to it gets destoyed. In the controller the needed controls for the grid are created and then rendered in the view. In my eyes this would mix up view and controller logic inside the controller and does not feel like best practice
Idea 2 - Create two views and switch between them
My second idea was to create two views, each for the layout I need and switch between them. This would mean a lot of code replication in both the controller and the view. Does not feel like this would be the right way.
So I would be glad if you have own experience on this or if there is really something like a best practice for such a behaviour.
Thank you and kind regards!
I would say, idea 2 because of the following reasons:
It is best practice to work according to the MVC methodology which means separating logic, view and data. Since the controls define your view it is best to instantiate your controls in the files that are meant for it (the XML Views).
Performance: Destroying all controls means that if the user decides to switch between views, the controls have to be re-instantiated by the controller every time. This is, even though you probably won't notice it, not performant.
You don't need code replication: The argument of code replication is not necessarily true. If you can execute the same actions in the list and grid-view, it should be enough to just link the controller to both views and in that case you'll hardly have to replicate any code. Just make sure that you split your logic in enough functions. That way you might need to write some extra public functions to handle events, but not much more.
Related
https://github.com/brianchance/MvvmCross-UserInteraction is a very nice plugin for showing cross platform Alerts!
But for this question, can we assume it can not use a UIAlertView (or some other top level MessageBox type call on other platforms) but needs to show a Message within a given subsection of the screen (i.e. on IPhone you would need to supply a UIView to the plugin which it will use to show the message within).
So, how would you set this up so the ViewModel knows what View to use as its display container?
As a specific example, if I wanted an Error Service, as so -
public interface IErrorPFService
{
void Show();
void Hide();
void SetErrors(List<Error> errors);
}
and I create a platform specific implementation for it.
If I inject this into my ViewModel so it can control Error Show/Hide/Set how do I tell it the UIView (or equivalent) that I want my Errors to show within?
Can I just expose the IErrorPFService field as a public property and do -
MyViewModel.ErrorPFService = new ErrorPFService(View);
in my ViewDidLoad ...
Or is this coupled incorrectly vs Mvvm Practice?
I would expect the ViewModel to subscribe itself to the ErrorService.
When receiving a message it would expose it in a collection(?) and the View would bind to that collection.
This way the View is unknown to the service and the ViewModel has the chance to influence the View contrary to your solution.
It would help if you could give an example for the scenario you are describing.
Sometimes, the way you visually want to display something might not be the best way, so if it's possible for you, you might find a different and simpler way, which spares you from having to find a solution regarding what you are describing.
Generally, I always do the best I can to avoid the idea of having to actually pass a 'view' or an abstraction of it, from the view-model to view. Also, cross-platform wise, things can work very different in terms of UI interaction. You can find yourself in a situation when things are complicated just because UI works differently than what you expected.
But let's try find another perspective:
At any given point, the view knows what data \ feature it's displaying. So when you are calling from the view-model an user interaction action (by a service, property change, event, etc) the view should 'expect' it.
For example, the platform specific user interaction implementation is able to get the currently displayed top-view and interact it in a platform specific manner or based a relationship. In your example, the message-box can be displayed in a specific sub-view of the top level view.
In advanced scenarios, I guess you could try to create a cross-platform approach for this, but you should try to put in balance all the abstraction you want to create just for that. Think about doing this as a plan ... Z. If possible. Again, giving an example might help.
I want to implement navigating a tree structure like it is done in e.g. the WinRT file picker. I then want to be able to drop this behavior as part of any page.
My current attempt, is to try and register a secondary FrameAdapter/INavigationService in the container and use that for a frame that is different from the app root frame. So far, I could not get it to work.
My motivation behind that, is, that I do not want to reimplement sth. that the INavigationService already provides.
Basic structure:
ShellView that represents the general app layout (header, footer, navigation) and is currently an OneActive conductor.
Frame control (x:Name="ActiveItem") on the ShellView inside which the hierarchical navigation should occur
The chosen conductor has no relevance yet, since I'll probably have to nest the FrameControl inside another view later to really set up a MDI interface. I'll will want to have multiple screens that should be able to hierarchically navigate
I could not find a CM WP7 example of such a scenario
Can you help me out here?
My problems so far:
How do I access the container from a view code-behind without resorting to using the Application.Current. I figured, it is in the code-behind where I would want to setup the secondary FrameAdapter, since it is here that I have access to the FrameControl
How do I setup the INavigationService so that the initial loading by CM (populating the ActiveItem) is registered with it. There does not seem to be a navigation event for this initial display of the ActiveItem.
Many thanks in advance,
Tobias
PS: I have cross-posted to the Caliburn Micro discussions (Discussion over at CodePlex CM)
With Backbone I have created a view for a model. I would like to provide the following workflow to the users:
a) Initially, model content is just displayed via a template and there is an edit button
b) if the user clicks the edit button, the model content will be displayed in a form and can be saved back to the model by clicking a save button.
c1) if saved successfully, the new model content we be rerendered via the template and displayed again
c2) if there were any validation errors, the form is updated with the errors.
I came up with the following options on how to implement this. But I am not sure, on the best practices. Any advice is highly welcome.
Option 1: 2 sub views (one for the displaying the content, one for editing it) that are dynamically created on any switch between display and edit (and dropped afterwards).
Option 2: 2 sub views (one for the displaying the content, one for editing it) that are hidden/unhidden on any switch (like toggle)
Option 3: 2 sub views (one for the displaying the content, one for editing it) that are assigned to the parent element on any switch.
Option 4: 1 View to manage the model content and 2 templates (one for displaying and one for editing) that are rendered on any switch between between display and edit.
From my gut feeling, I clearly would prefer option 4, since it will need ony 1 view that could handle all logic. But maybe I have overseen something in terms of performance, event handling, DOM access etc. So any hard arguments on the pros and cons of the 4 options are highly appreciated.
What do you think?
I've been working on something like this except that the edit button is attached not to the whole model, but to individual attributes, which can be edited "in place". To do that I've been using backbone-forms, replacing the element to be edited by a backbone form and then re-rendering it after the form has been submitted. This works quite well.
In your case, since you're editing the whole model at once, it would actually be easier. When the user clicks the edit button, replace the view with a backbone form, and when they submit that re-render the model view with the errors or success message. Backbone forms makes displaying error messages on the form quite easy.
I have tried option 3 (2 subviews) and option 4 (1 view using 2 templates).
Here is an argument for 3:
Switching between readonly view and edit view in backbone js
And here is an article promoting 4, under "Switching a Contact Into Edit Mode":
http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/javascript-ajax/build-a-contacts-manager-using-backbone-js-part-4/
I found option 3 to more trouble, because now you have 3 views using the same model. It brings up issues in the DOM, because now there is an el for the parent and an el for each child, nested inside. It also brings up issues with encapsulation, because the child views should really be inherited from the parent, but that's difficult with javascript:
Access parent class member with javascript inheritance?
I wanted option 3 to work more like an abstract base class tied to the el in the DOM. Then view and edit could inherit from it and internally set the el, preventing nesting of two els. But this breaks how backbone.js nests views:
Swap/switch/exchange backbone.js views in place?
Option 4 "just worked" the first time I tried it. It's trivial to have an editTemplate that gets rendered if View.editing is true. And in practice, the read-only view tends to be so small, with so little interaction by definition, that it only adds to an edit view by a few lines.
The downside to 4 is that you dirty your view with switching logic.
An argument for 4 is that it increases the possibility to reuse code and reinforce DRY.
One last argument for 4 is that you might have a "rich" form at some point that is always on, and maybe you only want to enable editing on specific form elements. For example a Contact form might have an Address view inside that handles its own updating. So view/edit might not be mutually exclusive down the road.
I finally resigned myself to going with what worked (option 4) because both options use two templates in the html file. The backbone.js implementation details don't matter to the end user.
I think this is all worthy of some lengthy articles weighing the pros and cons of each approach, with real-world examples. Backbone.js also needs to have backbone-relational built into it, and probably Backbone.ModelBinder, with a better ._super implementation. If some of these concepts were more fleshed out, it would make it easier to implement option 3 IMHO.
But I'm curious what others think, because neither 3 or 4 are perfect as they stand now, and I'd like to know what the best practices are for this, since form handling is one of the primary reasons that people get into backbone.js in the first place.
Do you create a Viewcontroller per view screen? or should you share a viewcontrollers? (ie in the example below Should there be 3 controllers or just 1 controller?)
Example
Screens are related
Screen1 (input information),
Screen2 (Review and confirm Information),
Screen3 (thank you / status response).
You should code according to the MVC paradigm. Parcel out your code and separate it based on overrarching function. Here is a high level overview of MVC
(Data) Model: contains all of your app data, objects that are passed around and used to populate the views
View: everything that is some sort of visual output
Controller: Classes that make the models and views work together.
What this is saying, in iPhone development parlance, is don't just jam a bunch of code into your UIViewController subclass. If you want to change the way part of the system works, having one huge class with a ton of code in it is a lot harder to edit and fix, than several smaller classes with a specialized use.
To answer your question, you should most definitely use one controller for each view function, but going beyond that, you should create specialized classes that take the inputs and manipulate that data, create specialized classes that then use the data to send it back to the user in an output.
Don't put all of your code into one class. It might work, but if you ever need to tweak it, or, just like when the iPad came out, it has to be adapted to use on another platform, it will be easier to manage if you only have to change something small to make it work
In your case you definitely don't need separate controllers. In fact you don't even need separate views. You can create a single view to take information, process it in the same controller and show the result in a UIAlertView.
I'm a beginner with Eclipse RCP and I'm trying to build an application for myself to give it a go. I'm confused about how one actually goes about handling model objects. None of the examples I can find deal with the problem I'm having, so I suspect I'm going about it the wrong way.
Say I need to initialise the application with a class that holds authenticated user info. I used my WorkbenchWindowAdvisor (wrong place?) to perform some initialisation (e.g. authentication) to decide what view to show. Once that's done, a view is shown. Now, that view also needs access to the user info I had earlier retrieved/produced.
The question is, how is that view supposed to get that data? The view is wired up in the plugin.xml. I don't see any way I can give the data to the view. So I assume the view has to retrieve it somehow. But what's the proper place for it to retrieve it from? I thought of putting static variables in the IApplication implementation, but that felt wrong. Any advice or pointers much appreciated. Thanks.
The problem you are facing here is in my opinion not RCP related. Its more an architectural problem. Your view is wired with business logicand!
The solution can be done by two (common) design-patterns:
Model-View-Controler (MVC)
Model-View-Presenter (MVP)
You can find plenty information about this in the web. I am going to point a possible solution for your particular problem using MVP.
You will need to create several projects. One is of course an RCP plugin, lets call it rcp.view. Now you create another one, which doesnt make UI contributions (only org.eclipse.core.runtime to start with) and call it rcp.presenter. To simplify things, this plugin will also be the model for now.
Next steps:
Add the rcp.presenter to the
dependencies of rcp.view (its
important that the presenter has no
reference to the view)
Export all packages that you are
going to create in the rcp.presenter
so they are visible
In rcp.presenter create an interface
IPerspective that has some methods
like (showLogiDialog(), showAdministratorViews(User user), showStandardViews(User user))
Create a class PerspectivePresenter that takes IPerspective in the constructor and saves it in an attribute
In rcp.view go to your Perspective, implement your interface IPerspective, and in the constructor create a new reference presenter = new PerspectivePresenter(this)
call presenter.load() and implenent
this in the presenter maybe like this
code:
public void load()
{
User user = view.showLoginDialog(); // returns a user with the provided name/pw
user.login(); // login to system/database
if(user.isAdministrator())
view.showAdministratorViews(user);
else
view.showStandardViews(user);
}
As you can see, the view just creates a reference to the presenter, which is responsible for all the business logic, and the presenter tells the view what to display. So in your Perspective you implement those interface functions and in each one you can set up your Perspective in a different way.
For each View it goes in the same way, you will need a presenter for the view which performs operations and tells the view (using the interface) what to display and passing down the final data. The view doesnt care about the logic. This is also very usefull when using JFace-Databindings (then only bound data is passed to the view).
For example, the WorkbenchWindowAdisor will just create everything that is needed in the application. Other views, perspectives, then can enable/disable menus and so on depending on the data they got (like when isAdministrator you might want to enable an special adminMenu).
I know this is quite a heavy approach, but the Eclipse RCP is designed for big (as the name says rich) applications. So you should spend some time in the right architecture. My first RCP app was like you described...I never knew where to store things and how to handle all the references. At my work I learned about MVP (and I am still learning). It takes a while to understand the concept but its worth it.
You might want to look at my second post at this question to get another idea on how you could structure your plugins.