I have been using the MVVM Light Toolkit to help learn the MVVM pattern. However, I have not been able to solve the problem of usercontrols within controls scenario.
For example, in a Timesheet application, lets say we have a control called NewUnitOfWork. When it first loads, a panel with a ListBox with a list of projects is loaded as the Content of the NewUnitOfWork. The user clicks on one. A new panel is swapped in with a ListBox containing the possible tasks for that project. A task is selected and a new panel is loaded which will contain controls to input data for the chosen task of the chosen project.
So, we have the selected item in one usercontrol being passed to the other two user controls, which are, in turn swapped in as the Content of the NewUnitOfWork control (or window).
If each control has its own ViewModel, we need to pass the selected value from one ViewModel to the next etc.
I have got it working in a single user situation using global variables (via a "service"). However, there are concurrency issues with that and it is not a good solution. It's sub-par.
I have seen many times the suggestion on this forum to have on ViewModel as a member of another ViewModel. Whilst this solves the problem at hand, I believe it is a violation of the MVVM pattern. Another ViewModel is not UI-related functionality that the ViewModel shoule be directly.
So. Has anyone found a clean MVVM-complying way to do this sort of thing?
Cheers
Please always keep in mind that MVVM is just a pattern and it is designed to help you separate your UI and logic. Do not be afraid to “violate the pattern” if it helps to increase testability or maintainability of the application.
Having a master ViewModel with several child ViewModels is very handy if you have a complex UI. The main ViewModel may be responsible for handling the top level UI controls and for coordination of the child VMs, while other ViewModels are responsible for communication with the sub regions of your UI.
Moreover, if you have a really complex UI with the multiple nesting UI layers, you can implement an infrastructure to automatically cascade all the events from master to child VMs.
And of cause, you may try to use one of the more advanced MVVM frameworks. For example Catel implements pretty comprehensive model to resolve such situations with nested VMs.
I don't see a problem with ViewModels referencing other ViewModels (based on my experience with TreeViews). Have a look at any article about TreeView and MVVM. You will see that each node is a ViewModel, that references a collection of child nodes, which are ViewModels. Trying to do that without VM-VM references would be a nightmare.
Josh Smith
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WPF/TreeViewWithViewModel.aspx
I have been using the following setup:
A 'master' VM with a 'collection' VM and a 'details' VM as nested properties.
The master VM is tied to a View that is used as a master-detail form. This master-detail View is composed from two other Views.
I find it a very neat setup because it allows me to put search criteria in the master View(Model) and keeps the other View(Model)s clean.
I can't see how this would break the pattern.
Related
Is there any library / framework that could simplify Universal Windows Platform app development of the application that contains multiple Frames.
I mean, using MVVM Light or BezySoftware MVVM-Navigation the application is highly tied to the idea of navigating between different pages that are hosted by single frame.
The UI I try to develop consist of multiple content frames (main, left, right) which content varies. I need something that will let me navigate easily between different views (by placing these views into appropriate frame) and provide the same features I would have with BezySoftware MVVM-Navigation, so:
handling of the view model state persistence
the ability to activate / query deactivate view models
back button feature
Few different options:
Combination of a single navigation service injected into your view model AND user controls for areas that need to be repeated view to view (e.g. a tabs, status bars, etc). With this route, every time you create a new view you would paste in the common user controls that need to appear. You would also be able to expose bindable properties from said user controls.
Combination of ContentControl, DataTemplate, and DataTemplateSelector to load in either an entire view (Page) or fragments of XAML. As one person pointed out you cannot use DataType attribute, instead you use the DataTemplateSelector class to do the mapping for you. With this approach you can also use triggers to dynamically change the template (content) based on changes to properties on your view model and/or user interactions.
A mix between 1 and 2 above.
I might right the whole thing right here, but it too lengthy. I just recommend you see this article to get your answer.
MVVM patter in UWP
We've been using the recommended GWT approach of building parts of our application in an MVP manner. The logic we use is based on Google's examples - the Presenter fetches/prepares data and sets it on the View, and the View contains a reference to the Presenter which it calls (e.g. in UiHandlers).
Some parts of the application which we built should be reused in other views. For example - a view which is sometimes the "main view" of a part of the application - can be used inside a pop-up in another part of the application (of course, the views/presenters are initialized differently in this other case, but basically it is the same thing).
What would be the correct approach to do stuff like this? I cannot seem to find a suitable one without resorting to ugly hacky stuff.
For example - if I put the presenter of the reused component inside the main view - it is easy to initialize the reused component, but it is ugly to receive a result back in the main presenter. This can be solved by passing a runnable or creating a custom handler or passing the parent presenter itself to the reused presenter.
All of these approaches don't seem right to me though and seem ugly.
Any ideas/experiences?
What you're describing is a view being able to be controlled by 2 distinct presenters. Abstracting those presenters behind a common API, in the form of an interface, should be enough.
You can also see it as a composite widget being used within two distinct views. The composite widget would then expose events and a public API that both views could wire to their specific presenters.
See Activites and Places,It can help you to desing and structure you app.
https://developers.google.com/web-toolkit/doc/latest/DevGuideMvpActivitiesAndPlaces
.
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 am loading controls dynamically from the web server from separate XAP files. After creating an instance I want to show them in tab Pages. The controls can be MMVM controls using CM but also non MVVM standard controls.
Before trying the tab I tested to simply show a control dynamically on the page by using:
<ContentControl Name="TestControl" />
Test control is a property of Type UserControl which is set via creating a new Instance of a dynamically loaded control. Now this gives me an error that it can't find the view. In case of non MVVM controls there is of course no view, so how do I load a non MVVM control?
I tried to make the test control a MVVM control, but still get the cannot load view error. Makes sense as such instance is not created. If I create an instance of the dynamically loaded view besides the view model, how do I "Add" this so that CM finds it?
Last but not least, how do I bind this to a tab control in Silverlight? The idea is to have a collection of user controls (plugins) which each is rendered in its separate tab page.
Thanks for any help.
(I got this done in no time NOT using MVVM, still not sure if MVVM is worth all the complexity)
There's no such thing as "mvvm control". MVVM is just a pattern not a control type. Basically, in Caliburn you don't need to work vith UserControls or Views directly, but if you pick the ViewModel first approach, Caliburn framework should be able to find the matching view for you. In your case since you're loading XAP files dynamically, you need to add them to the list of assemblies Caliburn looks to find a View/ViewModel (and bind them together) and this is done through IAssemblySource interface. According to the documentation here:
So, what is AssemblySoure.Instance? This is the place that
Caliburn.Micro looks for Views. You can add assemblies to this at any
time during your application to make them available to the framework,
but there is also a special place to do it in the Bootstrapper.
I'm using MVVM in a WPF app. I'm very new to both. Let me state that I am not a purist in the MVVM pattern, I am trying to use as many best practices as I can but am trying to make what I think are reasonable compromises to make it work in our environment. For example, I am not trying to achieve 0% code in my View code-behind.
I have a couple of questions about best practices.
1) I understand I don't want my VM to know about the attached View, but is it reasonable for the View to have a reference to its VM?
2) If a control in a View opens another View (such as a dialog) should I handle this in the View? It seems wrong to handle it in the VM since then the VM has some knowledge of a specific View.
1) The View has definitely a reference to the ViewModel through the DataContext. And you are allowed to cast the DataContext in your View:
public class ShellView : Window
{
…
public ShellViewModel { get { return DataContext as ShellViewModel; } }
This isn’t a violation with the Model-View-ViewModel pattern.
.
2) You are right. A ViewModel shouldn’t open another View. A better approach is to use Controllers. They are responsible for the Workflow of an application.
If you are interested in more detailed information then you might have a look at the WPF Application Framework (WAF).
1) Here are two simple practices for View's "knowing about" a ViewModel. It's reasonable for a View to know about a ViewModel (for Data Binding) -- but you may not need it in your case. See if either of these approaches help solve your problem. There are other ways, but these should be simple enough:
public View(ViewModel vm)
{
View.DataContext = vm;
}
public Bootstrapper(View v, ViewModel vm)
{
v.DataContext = vm;
//or, if you want it to have no parameters
View v = new View();
ViewModel vm = new ViewModel();
v.DataContext = vm;
}
The first option isn't bad if you have a service location tool, but there is a flavor of MVVM that doesn't like any code in the View's Code-Behind. The second option isn't bad either, should be simple enough for your task.
2.) This question can be a bit of a sticky point in MVVM design. If we are talking about a general Win32 MessageBox, I will often separate that logic into an additional object and put it in the VM. This way tends to a little more clear. (For example, I have selected an item in a ListBox, I have attached a Delete ICommand to that action, and in my ViewModel when this ICommand is Executed, I will poke my MessageBoxObject to ask if the user "wants to really delete" this item). More advanced "Dialogs" would use additional ViewModels and DataTemplates for those ViewModels. I prefer the Mediator approach.
1). The view will need a reference to the view model at some level, since the viewmodel will act as the view's datacontext.
2) One way to handle this is to have a generalized viewmodel representing a dialog, that is owned by the main viewmodel (the one being used as the views datacontext.)
You can use a command to crate a new instance of a dialog viewmodel, which will have a corresponding datatemplate defined in your resources. This template will be set to bind to the dialogviewmodel type.
Quite late, but I think this is tricky enough to deserve lots of different perspectives.
I understand I don't want my VM to know about the attached View, but
is it reasonable for the View to have a reference to its VM?
As already answered, a proper View-ViewModel arrangement involves the ViewModel being assigned as the View's DataContext property. That allows DataBindings to be "automagically" established from declarative XAML, or fine-tuned via code behind.
Sometimes, you'll be tempted to write, in your code behind, something like this:
var dc = DataContext as CleverViewModel;
CleverViewModel.CleverProperty.Add(someValue); // just a simple example
I believe the proper way to achieve this sort of things is NOT to cast DataContext, but instead:
Have some dedicated control in View, for example an ItemsControl with its ItemsSource two-way databound to some property in viewmodel:
<ItemsSource x:Name="cleverControl" Visibility="Collapsed" ItemsSource="{Binding CleverProperty, Mode=TwoWay}"/>
Cast the bound property instead of the whole ViewModel, in code behind:
var collection = (ObservableCollection<double>)cleverControl.ItemsSource;
collection.Add(someValue);
Note the important difference: the second approach in this example doesn't require the View to know the ViewModel type, it only needs a property named CleverProperty of type ObservableCollection<double>. This allows me to have polymorphic or even duck-typed ViewModels.
If a control in a View opens another View (such as a dialog) should I
handle this in the View? It seems wrong to handle it in the VM since
then the VM has some knowledge of a specific View.
This shouldn't happen in strict MVVM, and its not difficult to avoid using DataTemplates. DataTemplates map a given type of DataContext to a given type of view, so anytime the datacontext of a ContentControl changes, its display also changes, provided that you have a DataTemplate for that type:
A control in the view could send a command to the ViewModel, which in turn would update some of its own properties, that would be reflected by the view.
A View could contain another View, outside the knowledge of the ViewModel. In this case, the code behind can manipulate the datacontext of the contained view.
There are more subtleties, but I have been using this approach with good results. Hope this helps someone.
Build Your Own MVVM Framework
I found the approach suggested by Rob Eisenberg very interesting.
Key points:
Convention over configuration
ViewModel first
Which is very similar to ASP.NET MVC philosophy.
I highly recommend watching the video.