I want to make use of a DomainDataSource control from the RIA controls on my View, but for query parameters I have to pass the DomainDataSource to my ViewModel, currently I contruct the ViewModel in the code behind of the View and pass the DomainDataSource to the ViewModel.
This works very well as I have full control over the DomainDatasource, but I am now told by my colleagues that the way I do it breaks the pattern.
Is this true, if I pass the dds to my ViewModel do I break the pattern and further is there a way that this can be done or am I forced to fetch data only from the ViewModel.
Thanks in advance
See this post for Colin Blair's answer on this topic
http://forums.silverlight.net/forums/t/198215.aspx
Related
We are using Avalonia and ReactiveUI but have run into an issue. Our Model will be updated by an asynchronous thread and we're trying to figure out how to tie it (bind it) correctly to the View. It seems in the MVVM way of thinking the View doesn't interact directly with the Model, only the ViewModel. So do we need a double binding where the ViewModel binds to the Model and the View binds to ViewModel? If so how can this be done?
As a first try our Model inherits from INotifyPropertyChanged and our ViewModel subscribes to it's PropertyChanged event. However, we have to manually add code to switch between all of the possible properties of our Model to update our ViewModels correct property (and thus the View using this.RaiseAndSetIfChanged). It seems like there should be a better way...
Please, excuse the simple question but we are new to MVVM.
I know this is a vague question, but I was so fixated in MVP design, for years, I decided to keep myself up to date and decided to venture to MVVM architecture design, I've been reading alot of blogs, samples and stuffs about the Stream/Observer pattern that MVVM follows, but what is not clear with me(cant find very very simple code) how does MVVM handle ui-events? such as onclick? in MVP, the view and the presenter has a two-way contract to handle such thing
// called by view
presenter.onViewButtonClicked
void onViewButtonClicked() {
// do something here that business logic requires
view.doSomethingAfterPresenterReceivedClickEvent()
}
I know that View in MVVM subscribe's to ViewModel that when something happened to the data(Model) View will react to it
now, how can I tell ViewModel that I clicked something? ( PS : I know that I have to subscribe to ViewModel to listen to any changes when I clicked something ), I just need some guidelines and examples how can I tell VM that I did something intentionally.
I read Microsoft's MVVM documentation and it says something about iCommand, a contract-like something to tell MVVM a UI-event occurred.
would anyone enlighten me please... Thanks in advance
Edit: I forgot to mention, Im not using DataBinding, and due to fair pros and cons, I decided not to.
I am truly not an MVVM expert, but from my knowledge:
The main difference between MVP and MVVM is that in MVP, there is a two way connection between the view and the presenter, which means that the presenter knows about the view (interface) and the view knows about the presenter (interface).
In MVVM on the other hand, this connection is only one way, which means that the view knows about the viewmodel, but the viewmodel doesn't know about the view (since the connection from the viewmodel to the view is handled via observed data).
This allows the viewmodel to be independent of any view or view implementation and allows a single viewmodel to be used by multiple views.
So to (finally) answer your initial question: the way 'onClick' events are handled is basicly the same in MVP and MVVM .. the view notifies the presenter / viewmodel about the event and then:
the presenter sets up the data in the model and calls the according methodes on the view (in MVP)
the viewmodel sets up changed data which automatically triggers a reaction on the view since that data is observed (in MVVM)
Hope this helps :)
I'm a little confused about MVVM.
I understand the concept and can see the advantages. My problem is: does the ViewModel pass data directly from the model.
For example, let's say I have a "User" model with a findByName() method. The ViewModel would call this in order to pass
the relevant user details to the view.
The model would likely retrun a set of "User" objects each which has properties such as name, email address etc and may also have methods.
My question is, should the ViewModel return the set of User objects to the view, or return a restructured version of this which
contains only what the view needs?
As I understand it, the "User" object in this case is part of the model layer and in MVVM the View should be dependant only on the ViewModel.
My issue with this is the ammount of seemingly redundant binding logic required in the ViewModel that would be created to restructure the output.
Passing the set of User objects directly to the View (via the ViewModel) would be far simpler.
There's a little bit of redundancy, sure. However, if you implement MVVM by presenting the objects, you get to
format the model information for the view without polluting the model with presentation logic
notify the view when anything changes
use WPF's validation (if you're using WPF)
run acceptance tests from the VM level rather than the GUI if you want to
abstract your presentation away from any changes to the model.
That last one's important. Mostly presentation bindings nowadays are dynamic and fail silently - web pages, WPF, you name it. That means that if someone decides to rename something on the model, it will suddenly break in your GUI and you won't know.
By putting a VM between your Model and View you buffer yourself from changes like this.
If you want to go ahead and get something working with the Users as they are, I say go for it - it'll help you get fast feedback on your GUI. However, the first time those User objects don't do exactly what the View needs, or you need to notify the View of a change, or you find yourself polluting the model, or something in the binding breaks, maybe that's a good time to move to MVVM.
Doesn't that just move the break to the ViewModels which are using the model? You'd still need to go through and update all of those.
If I renamed something (e.g. changed "surname" to "lastname") I'd expect things to break. I don't see how adding the binding in the VM layer fixes that.
I have a WPF user control ...which is in MVVM. The user control(which contains a listview) need data from the page (where it is included). I have to set a property in View's code behind to get this data input. Will this comply with MVVM(But MVVM pattern do not support adding code in code behind file of view as far as i know).if not, what is the way for the same?
You want to do this via data binding. The controls are bound to properties in your viewmodel which receives the data, applies the needed logic and gives it back to the view for displaying it.
Have a look here to get an idea on how all that works.
I have got a link : http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/wpf/thread/a3eedc3e-0d59-420c-aba0-44fe8b00552f
But I'm not really getting whats meant by injection in it (as given below) :
an interface to the UserControl public model called IUserControlModel. It has the properties that should be visible from outside;
- a UserControlViewModel that contains a public property of type IUserControlModel that is injected in the constructor; plus all the properties used for XAML binds specific to the usercontrol implementation; XAML may have binds directly to the IUserControlModel properties too;
- a MainWindowViewModel that nests the IUserControlModel inside.
I think your problem can be solved in easier way. If you expose ItemsSource property of ListView as Dependency Property of your user control you can achieve what you want without unnecesary (in this case) overhead of implementing MVVM pattern : You then can just use databinding to add data from the page where the user control is included.
post that I think answers your question :
Post link
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.