I have three controllers in an area in my application that I want to break out from the rest of the area. For instance I would like a url like /Area/Approve/Timesheet/Action and then be able to still have /Area/Timesheet/Action that both have completely different functionality (one approves the time sheet as a supervisor, the other fills out the time sheet as an employee). Is this possible?
Yes, it's definitely possible, as long as you have the right routes set up. Remember that even though the default MVC Area template shows one particular route pattern, in the end, all the routes go into the same global routing table, so as long as you set the right URL patterns, you should be good to go.
If you're having trouble with any particular set of routes, please specify what you have and what isn't working.
Related
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.
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 tried the example which is showing how to get data from history to re-generate UI; The thing I see mostly in all "history usage" examples are related to UI re-generation only so it is none-static way...
But what about "each UI state may have its unique url something like JSF does with flows"? For example I have app url like a
http://localhost:8080/myapp/MyApp.html
the app default UI contains main menu which is helping to navigate through my test catalog; I tried to make possible keep the UI dynamics in history by building url in this way
http://localhost:8080/myapp/MyApp.html#menu_testcategory_page1
but when I click internet browser "refresh" button the url keeps the same as http://localhost:8080/myapp/MyApp.html#menu_testcategory_page1 but the UI comes back to its default state :(
So my question is
is there an optimal way in pure gwt to stay in the same UI state even after browser's refresh button is clicked (I mean the unload/load window events occur)?
thanks
P.S. gwt 2.3
You should implement Activities and Places pattern: http://www.gwtproject.org/doc/latest/DevGuideMvpActivitiesAndPlaces.html
I am using it for 3 years, and it works very well.
Note, however, that when you reload a page, you lose all of your state, data, etc. If you need to preserve some of it, you can use a combination of a Place (#page1) and a token that tells the corresponding Activity the state of the View representing this Place, i.e. (#page1:item=5).
You probably just forgot to call
History.fireCurrentHistoryState();
from your entry point.
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)
I have a GWT App and I am using GWT MVP with Places / Activities.
My application layout is something like
MENU | CONTENT
The Menu and the Content displays will change dynamically and one changes separately from the other. What I mean by this is that when the Content display changes I do not want to have to update the Menu display and vice versa. Both displays need to be able to respond to PlaceChangeEvents and update themselves when these occur. The problem is that each display should only update in response to certain PlaceChangeEvents, ignoring PlaceChangeEvents that are directed at the other display. However this does not work using the 'standard' GWT MVP pattern because even when each display has it's own ActivityManager they will automatically pick up ALL PlaceChangeEvents because there is a single PlaceController listening on a single EventBus. The only way I can see to do this is by having two EventBus's and two PlaceControllers - one for the Menu and one for the Content. So my question is whether this is a good solution or is there a simpler/better way that I am missing? One problem with this solution is that the PlaceHistoryHandler can only be registered with one of the EventBus's.
Place changes are actually controlled by ActivityMappers. They get a Place and return the corresponding Activity. This is where you control how Places are mapped to Activities:
You need to create two ActivityMappers (MenuActivityMapper, ContentActivityMapper) and then instantiate two ActivityManagers each with it's own ActivityMappers. Then for each ActivityManager you call setDisplay(AcceptsOneWidget display) where for each you pass in an area (display) where it will show it's content.
For menu you will probably only use one Activity, since it's available in all Places. So MenuActivityMapper.getActivity() will always return the same instance of the MenuActivity. To enable MenuActivity to still adapt it's look based on place changes, MenuActivity should listen to PlaceChangeEvents.