Lets take this example. I have a AView which is bound to AViewModel. AView should execute an ACommand on AViewModel, and pass it a parameter. The problem is that ViewA doesnt have enough information to pass to command, so another BView needs to be displayed, in order to gather information from the user. After the VIewB is closed, ViewA invokes ACommand on AViewModel, and passes parameter to it.
How to handle this scenario? Should I allow AView to communicate directly to BView, or I am breaking some rule if I do so?
Another way I am thinking is to invoke a ACommand on AViewModel without a parameter, then from VIewModelA send a message that a information is required to complete the task. This information is captured by MainPageViewModel, than sends a request to open BView, which is bound to BViewModel. When BView is closed, a BVIewModel sends a message with additional info, and ViewModelA has subscribed to this type of message, so it receives it, and completes the task. Pretty complicated for just entering values in two text boxes, right? :)
There are 3 golden rules to MVVM: Separation, Separation & Separation :)
Reasons include: Automated testing of components, complete separation of functionality (e.g. for independent modules), independent team development of modules (without tripping over each other) and generally just easier to figure out what does what.
In answer to your interconnecting two Views: you are adding dependencies that should not exist. Separation of concerns is more important than a little complexity (and I would argue that the messaging model is less complex than maintaining a direct interconnection).
The complexity of publishing/listening for an extra message is nothing compared to the harm of interconnecting unrelated components so your last suggestion is "better", but I would actually suggest a cleaner approach to the whole problem:
A few guidelines:
Views should not know where their data comes from, only how to display a certain shape of data. Command execution is via bindings to ICommands on the VM.
ViewModels should hold a certain shape of data and commands. It should have no idea where the data comes from or what is binding to it.
Models hold the actual data, but have no idea where it is consumed.
Controllers (often overlooked in MVVM) register/push events, populate VMs from models, set the code in ICommands, control visibility of views etc. Controllers are the only thing actually required to stay in memory at all times and they are quite slim (mostly code & little data).
Basically I would suggest adding Controllers to your MVVM pattern (MVCVM?). App/modules create and initialize controllers. Controllers subscribe to events and provide the logic of the application.
Try this pattern and see how simple it becomes to work with lots of Views, ViewModels and Models. You do not mention what language or framework you are using, so I can't make specific suggestions for examples.
Related
In an MvvmCross solution I have a singleton Service class which gets items from a web service and updates a public ObservableCollection. It does this every five seconds and items may be added or removed or their properties changed.
I also have a ViewModel which has a public property which is set to the Service's ObservableCollection. The View is bound to the ObservableCollection so that when items are added, removed or changed the view should update to show this.
However, as expected, I am getting a threading exception because the ObservableCollection is being updated by a thread other than the Main/UI one and the binding therefore cannot update the UI.
Within the Service I do not have the InvokeOnMainThread call readily available so there is no obvious cross platform way to get back on to the main thread when updating the ObservableCollection. Also, doing this just seems wrong - a Service shouldn't be concerning itself with UI matters (whereas a ViewModel can).
Also I am a bit nervous about exposing events from a Service in case this causes ViewModels to not be Garbage Collected. I note that in #slodge's N+1 series http://mvvmcross.wordpress.com/ he is using a messenging service presumably to avoid just this.
So a possible solution may be to publish a message with the latest list of items, and for the ViewModel to subscribe to the message and update its own ObservableCollection on the UI thread by comparing the message contents to it. But this seems a little clunky.
Any suggestions on the best way to implement this would be appreciated - thanks.
The original requirement that INotifyCollectionChanged must be called on the UI thread really comes from the synchronous way that the Windows controls update based upon the Added/Removed/Moved/Replaced/Reset notifications.
This synchronous update is, of course, entirely sensible - it would be very hard to update the UI display while another thread is actively changing it.
There are 'new' changes in .Net 4.5 which may mean the future is nicer... but overall these look quite complicated to me - see https://stackoverflow.com/a/14602121/373321
The ways I know of to handle this are essentially the same as those outlined in your post:
A. keep the ObservableCollection in the Service/Model layer and marshal all events there onto the UI thread - this is possible using any class which inherits from MvxMainThreadDispatchingObject - or can be done by calling MvxMainThreadDispatcher.Instance.RequestMainThreadAction(action)
Whilst it's unfortunate that this means your Service/Model does have some threading knowledge, this approach can work well for the overall App experience.
B. make a duplicate copy of the collection in the ViewModel - updating it by some weak reference type mechanism
e.g. by sending it Messages which tell it what has been Added, Removed, Replaced or Moved (or completely Reset) - note that for this to work, then it's important that the Messages arrive in the correct order!
or e.g. allowing snapshots to be sent across from the Service/Model layer
Which of these to choose depends on:
the frequency, type and size of the collection changes - e.g. whether you are only getting occasional single line updates, whether you are getting frequent large bursts of changes, or whether you are mainly seeing complex groups of changes (which essentially are Resets as far as the UI is concerned)
the animation level required in the UI - e.g. should added/deleted items animate in/out? If no animation is required then it can sometimes be easier just to replace the entire list with a new snapshot rather than to work out the incremental changes.
the size of the collection itself - obviously duplicating a large collection can cause out-of-memory issues
the persistence required on the collection - if persistence is required, then ObservableCollection itself may not be appropriate and you may need to use a custom INotifyCollectionChanged implementation (like the MyCustomList samples)
I personally generally choose the (A) approach in apps - but it does depend on the situation and on the characteristics of the collection and its changes.
Note that while this is most definitely an mvvm issue, the underlying problem is one independent of databinding - how do you update an on-screen display of a list while the list itself is changing on a background thread?
Me and my team are currently rookie developers in Objective-C (less than 3 months in) working on the development of a simple tab based app with network capabilities that contains a navigator controller with a table view and a corresponding detailed view in each tab. The target is iOS 4 sdk.
On the networking side, we have a single class that functions as a Singleton that processes the NSURLConnection for each one of the views in order to retrieve the data we need for each of the table views.
The functionality works fine and we can retrieve the data correctly but only if the user doesn't change views until the petition is over or the button of the same petition (example: Login button) is pressed on again. Otherwise, different mistakes can happen. For example, an error message that should only be displayed on the root view of one of the navigation controllers appears on the detailed view and vice versa.
We suspect that the issue is that we are currently handling only a single delegate on the Singleton for the "active view" and that we should change it to support a behavior based on the native Mail app in which you can change views while the data that was asked for in each one of the views keeps loading and updating correctly separately.
We have looked over stackoverflow and other websites and we haven't found a proper methodology to follow. We were considering using an NSOperationQueue and wrapping the NSURLConnections on an NSOperation, but we are not sure if that's the proper approach.
Does anyone have any suggestions on the proper way to handle multiple asynchronous NSURLConnections to update multiple views, both parent and child, almost simultaneously at the whim of the user's interaction? Ideally, we don't want to block the UI or disable the buttons as we have been recommended.
Thank you for your time!
Edit - forgot to add, one of the project restrictions set by our client is that we can only use the native iOS sdk network framework and not the ASIHTTPRequest framework or similar. At the same time, we also forgot to add that we are not uploading any information, we are only retrieving it from the WS.
One suggestion is to use NSOperations and a NSOperationsQueue. The nice thing about this arrangement is you can quickly cancel any in-process or queued work (if say the user hits the back button.
There is a project on github, NSOperation-WebFetches-MadeEasy that makes this about as painless as it can be. You incorporate one class in your classes - OperationsRunner - which comes with a "how-to-use-me" in OperationsRunner.h, and two skeleton NSOperations classes, one the subclass of another, with the subclass showing how to fetch an image.
I'm sure others will post of other solutions - its almost a problem getting started as there are a huge number of libraries and projects doing this. That said, OperationsRunner is a bit over 100 lines of code, and the operations about the same, so this is really easy to read, understand, use, and modify.
You say that your singleton has a delegate. Delegation is inappropriate when multiple objects are interested in the result. If you wish to continue using a singleton for fetching data, you must switch your pattern to be based on notifications. Your singleton will have responsibility for determining which connection corresponds to which task, and choosing an appropriate notification to be posted.
If you still need help with this, let me know, I'll try to post some sample code.
I am attempting to learn and apply the CQRS design approach (pattern and architecture) to a new project but seem to be missing a key piece.
My client application executes a query and retrieves a list of light-weight, read-only DTOs from the read model. The user selects an item and clicks a button to initiate some action. The action is performed by creating and sending the corresponding command object to the write model (where the command handler carries out the action, updates the data store, etc.) At some point, however, I need to update the UI to reflect changes to the state of the application resulting from the action.
How does the UI know when it is time to refresh the original list?
Additional Info
I have noticed that most articles/blogs discussing CQRS use MVC client apps in their examples. I am working on a Silverlight client right now and am beginning to wonder if the pattern simply doesn't work in that case.
Follow-Up Question
After thinking more about Bartlomiej's response and subsequent discussion, I am wondering about error handling in CQRS. Given that commands are basically fire-and-forget asynchronous operations, how do we report an error condition to the UI?
I see 'refreshing the UI' to take one of two forms:
The operation succeeds, data has changed and the UI should be updated to reflect these changes
The operation fails, data has not changed but the user should be notified of the failure and potential corrective actions.
Even with a Post-Redirect-Get pattern in an MVC, you can't really Redirect until you know the outcome of the operation. None of the examples I've seen thus far address these real-world concerns.
I've been struggling with similar issues for a WPF client. The re-query trigger for any data is dependent on the data your updating, commands tend to fall into categories:
The command is a true fire and forget method, it informs the back-end of a state change but this change does not need to be reflected in the UI, or the change simply isn't important to the UI.
The command will alter the result of a single query
The command will alter the result of multiple queries, usually (in my domain at least) in a cascading fashion, that is, changing the state of a single "high level" piece of data will likely affect many "low level" caches.
My first trigger is the page load, very few items are exempt from this as most pages must assume data has been updated since it was last visited. Though some systems may be able to escape with only updating financial and other critical data in this way.
For short commands I also update data when 'success' is returned from a command. Though this is mostly laziness as IMHO all CQRS commands should be fired asynchronously. It's still an option I couldn't live without but one you may have to if your implementation expects high latency between command and query.
One pattern I'm starting to make use of is the mediator (most MVVM frameworks come with one). When I fire a command, I also fire a message to the mediator specifying which command was launched. Each Cache (A view model property Retriever<T>) listens for commands which affect it and then updates appropriately. I try to minimise the number of messages while still minimising the number of caches that update unnecessary from a single message so I'll (hopefully) eventually end up with a shortlist of update reasons, with each 'reason' updating a list of caches.
Another approach is simple honesty, I find that by exposing graphically how the system updates itself makes users more willing to be patient with it. On firing a command show some UI indicating you're waiting for the successful response, on error you could offer to retry / show the error, on success you start the update of the relevant fields. Baring in mind that this command could have been fired from another terminal (of which you have no knowledge) so data will need to timeout eventually to avoid missing state changes invoked by other machines also.
Noting the irony that the only efficient method of updating cache's and values on a client is to un-separate the commands and queries again, be it through hardcoding or something like a hashmap.
My two cents.
I think MVVM actually fits into CQRS quite well. The ViewModel simply becomes an observable ReadModel.
1 - You initialize your ViewModel state via a query on the ReadModel.
2 - Changes on your ViewModel are automatically reflected on any Views that are bound to it.
3 - Certain changes on your ViewModel trigger a command to propegate to a message queue, an object responsible for sending those commands to the server takes those messages off the queue and sends them to the WriteModel.
4 - Clients should be well formed, meaning the ViewModel should have performed appropriate validation before it ever triggered the command. Once the command has been triggered, any event notifications can be published onto an event bus for the client to communicate changes to other ViewModels or components in the system interested in those changes. These events should carry the relevant information necessary. Typically, this means that other view models usually don't have to re-query the read model as a result of the change unless they are dependent on other data that needs to be retrieved.
5 - There is an object that connects to the message bus on the server for real-time push notifications when other clients make changes that this client is interested in knowing about, falling back to long-polling if necessary. It propagates those to the internal message bus that ties the components on the client together.
6 - The last part to handle is the fact that clients can be occasionally connected, which should be the only reason a command fails (they don't have internet access at the moment), which is when the client should be notified of problems.
In my ASP.NET MVC 3 I use 2 techniques depending on use case:
already well-known Post-Redirect-Get pattern which fits nicely with CQRS. Your MVC action that triggers the command returns a redirection to action that performs a query.
in some cases, like real-time updates of other clients, I rely on domain events/messages. I create an event handler that uses singlarR to push changes to all connected and interested clients.
There are two major ways you can take as far as I know :
1) design your UI , so that the user does not see its changes right away. Like for instance a message to tell him his action is a success, and offering him different choices to continue his work. this should buy you enough time to have updated your readmodel.
2) more complex, but you might keep the information you have send to the server and shows them in the interface.
The most important I guess, educate your user if you can so that they know why the data is not here... yet!
I am thinking about it only now, but these are for sync command handling, not async, in async things go really harder on the brain...the client interface becomes an event eater too..
In my AppDelegate, I download some data from a JSON feed. I am downloading a now/next/later schedule for a few channels. I have three different view controllers for each now, next and later. In each view controller, a user can add/remove the channels so when that happens, the newly added channel data has to be downloaded again.
Since the data is downloaded in the AppDelegate and stored there, how would I pass it to the three view controllers? Should I implement three separate delegates? Keep in mind that when adding a new channel, its data has to be downloaded again (which I am doing outside the AppDelegate now).
Any help please?
Thanks
This is basically a matter of style and your approach isn't invalid as such.
I'd do it another way, though - the AppDelegate is not meant to be used as a workhorse and having several AppDelegates at the same time is simply impossible.
Here are some thoughts about how this could be done (though it's of course not the only proper way):
First, I'd employ Core Data or some other sort of storage which is available from anywhere within your app.
Then maybe I'd introduce some sort of "data controller" class (maybe a singleton). This class should handle both download of data and the distribution of that data to your viewcontrollers as requested.
By having one central controller for that purpose, you'd ensure that data gets downloaded only once because the controller knows exactly which data is already in stock.
Your viewcontrollers would neither be responsible for managing downloads anymore nor would they access the data on disk by themselves. They'd just make a request to your data controller and get a callback when the requested data is available - no matter if it was on disk already or has been downloaded for the occasion.
This keeps your VCs slim and focused and reduces the pain of making changes to your interface.
Toastor's answer is correct and as he says, there are several ways to do this. One is to call a data access class and change the values OR listen for changes on the values. For the later, the Key-Value Observing Programming Guide says the following:
KVO is particularly useful for communication between model and
controller layers in an application.
A controller object typically observes properties of model
objects, and a view object observes properties of model objects
through a controller.
In addition, however, a model object may observe other model
objects (usually to determine when a dependent value changes) or even
itself (again to determine when a dependent value changes).
Another is to make the dependency explicit, maybe passing a data access class saved in your app delegate. See Object-oriented design question, iPhone.
Im using a large amount of very small web services in my app and I have been down a couple of roads that does not scale or work as desired.
The Design approach Im thinking about:
The task for the viewController is to ask for a set of data from a general webServicesClass, this task is started in a new NSThread -> this will instantiate an object which solely retrieves the xml and returns it to the webServicesClass -> the webServicesClass now instantiates an object which solely can Parse some XML coming from this particular web service. The Parser then returns a nice Entity object to the webServiceClass. The WebserviceClass now needs to inform the viewController about this data.
The viewController implements a webServiceClassDelegate and some delegate methods to see if the web service request went as planned. e.g. -(void)aWebserviceFailed and -(void)aWebserviceSuccess.
0.5 Since the WebserviceClass is running is a different NSThread, will it be a problem calling delegate methods on the main NSThread in the parent object?
1.0 I think this design is sound as it completely incapsulates the retrieval, parsing and returning of the Entity in different classes. But, I will have to write delegation methods and implement delegation protocols on each step of the way, for each different webservice. i.e. starting from the bottom, the WebserviceClass must implement delegation methods for both the object that retrieves the XML (start, fail, success), then for the object that parses the XML(start, fail, success) and the WebserviceClass must be able to delegate each of these responses to the viewController that again must implement delegation methods from the WebserviceClass(start, fail, success).
Is there a much simpler way to do this?
I have some design pattern experience, but not from languages that uses delegation so consistently as Objective C. In AS3 or Java I would have events that could bubble up through the objects and inform whoever was listening about changes. In all the Objective example code I have read I have only seen NSNotifications (which would be the equivalent of the AS3 or Java 'Event') used 0.1% of the times.
The Design I described will give me something that scales perfectly for many web services and gives me complete control over where a potential error/exception happens, but it seems to be a lot of code to obtain this loose coupling.
1.1 Or should I fully embrace the delegation approach and get to work:)
Thanks for any pointers or help given. Im not asking for source code or the likes, more a "this is considered best practice in Objective C in the every day situation you just described" :)
I'd recommend taking a look at ASIHttpRequest(obtainable here) and NSOperation + NSOperationQueue (docs here). I don't think you should run a long-lived thread to talk to your web service all the time, unless you absolutely need a constant connection.
Basically ASIHttpRequest and NSOperation both encapsulate all of the networking and threading stuff. Operations make multi-threading on the iPhone really nice. Essentially you create an operation (through a factory or whatnot for ease of use), pop it in a queue and do something with the result.
As for what you do with the result (this applies to your original scenario too and 0.5 and 1.1) what typically happens is your operation/thread will then call a didSucceedAtGettingWhatever or didFailWithError:(NSError*) method. Delegation is pretty much the defacto way of making requests on the phone. If there are multiple delegates, then you can just use subject-observer, like you would in Java.
As for 1.0, ultimately no. What we typically do is we have an OperationDelegate and OperationTypes. Based upon which OperationType succeeded or completed, we have different logic. It's not the greatest and there are a ton of different ways of doing this, but you will have to have separate logic for separate events regardless of what you do. Whether or not that's in one method or many methods is up to you.