|
I thought I read in the OP's first message that he put the DP code in the code behind for the page. We should point out that the DP code and the property should both be defined in the view model. Nothing should be in the code behind!
|
|
|
|
|
First, I don't agree with the "Nothing in the code behind" mantra.
Second, if the DP is in the VM, then how does the control's host see it? It won't.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Whether you agree with it or not, it doesn't change the fact that is the accepted method of implementing MVVM. They aren't called best practices because somebody arbitrarily thinks there shouldn't be code in the code-behind. There are very few instances where code in the code behind is the only option. And putting the DP implementation in the code behind is not one of those times.
Secondly, do you actually know how the DP system works and how the property binding system works? Do you even know why you use dependency properties? Your comments make me think not. The DP system is pubic and static... it is accessible from anywhere in your code. The binding framework knows how to find the DP if the underlying property has been registered with it. Normal developers put the DP code in the view model so it only gets instantiated once. But you probably don't agree with that mantra either.
You seem sure that the control can't see the DP unless it is in the code behind but the dozens of programs I've written in Silverlight, WPF, WinRT, and Windows Phone all seem to work perfectly fine without a single DP in a code behind. And for the life of me, I can't find any real examples of someone suggesting that it goes in the code behind. Clearly I must be doing something wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
1) I started my original post with "I'm still struggling to understand DP's", so, no, I don't understand DP's, hence my post.
2) Your comments on the 'accepted method of implementing MVVM' are subjective. Just because I don't fully understand DP's doesn't mean I also don't understand WPF/MVVM. I've been doing MVVM for a long time with no problems. I just haven't used DP's and I thought I needed one here.
MVVM simply calls for a separation of concerns. So what concerns are we talking about? Data vs UI.
There's no law that states you can't put code in the code behind. The MVVM principle would not be violated if the code in the code behind was UI related. Do some Googling on "MVVM Code IN Code Behind" and you'll see lot's of discussions on folks putting UI code in the code behind to make their UI more functional.
Having said all that, I personally try to avoid code in the code behind simply because I don't see a need for it, and also because I don't want code in 2 places. But that doesn't make me a purist in any sense.
3) I'm not sure what you mean by "Normal developers put the DP code in the view model so it only gets instantiated once. But you probably don't agree with that mantra either."
a) I am a 'Normal developer' (I'm confused by this comment)
b) If the DP was in the View or VM - what would make it instantiate more than once?? My view's code behind and my VM's only ever instantiate once each. Again, confusing statement
I'm totally open to putting the DP in the VM. But when I've done that in the past it doesn't show up in the XAML. My JobListView control has the DP in the code behind. Therefore it's compiled into the same component. You of course know that the XAML and Code Behind are one, so putting the DP in the code behind allows it to be visible in the XAML of the view hosting the user control:
<views:JobListView Grid.Row="0"
SelectedJob="{Binding Path=SelectedJob, Mode=TwoWay}"/>
In this case, 'SelectedJob' is the DP defined in the JobListView code behind. Move the DP to the VM and this XAML is broken.
Again, all this is based on my limited knowledge of DB's. I have yet to see a decent tutorial on how to USE them. Not DEFINE them - USE them. There's a difference.
Thanks
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
I see I was getting a bit snarky in the previous reply. Sorry about that... I shouldn't do that. Please accept my apologizes.
Now, onto your questions...
MVVM is about separation of concerns but it is the WHY that really drives the structure. The idea is that if you remove "backward" dependencies, then you can swap layers in and out or reuse them. So the view depends on the view model but you can't have anything in the view model depend on the view. Similarly, the view model depends on the model (if implemented) but the model can't depend on the view model at all. If implemented this way, you can reuse the code at the VM and M levels. A single model could support multiple VM's. A single VM could support multiple views. Imagine, for a second, that you had an app that the main view displayed a list of customers. Supposed that your default view was a grid listing of those customers. What if you wanted to show them as tiles that could be rearranged? That would probably be best done in a different view. While you would only have one active view at any time, both views would bind to the same view model where you would maintain the data and the state. For example the "selected" customer shouldn't change if the user simply changes views. If you put anything that is outside of the scope of a single view in the code behind, then you have issues of scope and possible coupling between your view(s) and your view model(s). That is the reason to avoid putting code in the code behind. It is easy to say that it is no big deal when you have a 1 to 1 to 1 mapping. But it becomes a big deal when that changes. So the best practice is to avoid it so you don't have to go back and refactor if something changes.
And... that really answers the questions about dependency properties. DP's are used by the binding system to hook-up properties between two classes for automatic synchronization. If you are going to bind two properties (which is what you are doing with the selected row on the treeview and the corresponding property on the view model) then ONE of them has to be a dependency property. So a DP hooked to a DP will work. A DP hooked to a regular property will work. But a regular property hooked to a regular property will not work. The binding framework in this case, can't resolve the property name raised in the propertychanged event because the framework uses the dependency property system to resolve the property names and update the values.
The DP system is a static class so there is one instance of it for your application and it is automatically created the first time it gets called. Think of it as an impartial 3rd-party. If you look in the sample code provided in one of the other answers you will see where the public SelectedJob property gets registered (via the Register method of the DependencyProperty static class) with the DP system. The DP system now knows about the SelectedJob property on your view model. We usually pair the DP registration code up with the property code in the view model because the getter and the setter for the property must now GetValue and SetValue the backing dependency property. Once registered as a DP, the regular public property uses the DP system as the backing store so it is really just a proxy to make it easier to code against. The presence of the public property lets you write:
SelectedJob = new myJobClass;
rather than:
SetValue(SelectedJobProperty,value);
More importantly, the public property allows you to set the binding in xaml in a format that makes sense. So your SelectedJobs dependency property can be bound with:
<treeview SelectedItemEx = {Binding SelectedJob, mode = TwoWay} />
The binding system looks in the Dependency system to find SelectedJobProperty (the DP object for the SelectedJob property) at runtime to handle property updates.
The upshot of all of this is that the dependency system matches up the properties at runtime providing a level of indirection between the VM and the view. Because the VM depends on the DP system and the view depends on the DP system, they don't depend on each other and you achieve the separation we are after. The same sort of system is used for commands to go the other way (from the view to the viewmodel).
Since the base property we want to link up is exposed on the view model, we typically pair the DP code up with the property in the view model code. Since the VM only gets instantiated once, we can be sure that the DP only gets registered once. If we put the DP code in the code behind, we couldn't use the DP until the view was instantiated. Back to our example of where we have two views and one view model... now it suddenly doesn't work to put the DP code in the code behind. Do we put it in the first view or the second? Do we put it in both? What happens if we do that? How do we keep from getting an exception thrown because the property is already registered with the DP system? We avoid all of those questions by putting the DP code with the property we are registering in the view model.
Since the DP system is a static third-party and the binding system already knows how to locate it and use it, there is no concept of scope to worry about. Even though we put the code for the DP in the view model, all we are doing is calling the register function and passing in the property information. Technically we could put that anywhere and as long as the VM was instantiated before the call to register, it would work. Mull on that for a moment... you could technically create an instance of your VM in the app.xaml.cs code behind and put the call to register the property with the DP system right after it and it would still work. That goes against convention and it would make it tougher to maintain the code, but it would work.
So my initial statement that the DP code should be in the view model is a best practice and not a rule that is caused by some limitation in the framework. And you most certainly can put it in the code behind. But I hope you can see there are good reasons to pair it with the property on the view model.
Now, with all of that said, I'll probably ruin your day. Remember when I said that ONE property in the equation had to be a DP for the binding to work? The SelectedItemEx on the TreeView is probably already a DP based on the fact that the property on your view is being set when you click on a job. You can bind a property on ANY OTHER CONTROL to that same property on the view model provided the control's property you are hooking up is a DP (and most all of them are). Making the property on your VM a DP will not solve your scope problem and somehow make it available everywhere else. The binding system will ONLY look for properties scoped to the current data context. You need to manage the data context of the host and the wizard to get to the selectedjobs property.
Assuming you have a separate view model for the host and one for the wizard, they need references to the view model that contains the selectedjob. If you are using the MVVM light framework, you can use the Locator class to get the instance of the job view model in the other two view models. Otherwise, you need to create a public static instance of that VM in the app code behind or the main view (host?) code behind and pass it to the constructor of the host VM and/or the wizard VM exposing it as a property on those two view models. Then the selected job (to the host) becomes
hostViewModel.jobViewModel.SelectedJob
The binding would then be:
hostControlProperty = {Binding Path=jobViewModel.SelectedJob}
Assuming hostControlProperty is a DP, there is no need to make SelectedJob on the view model a DP. Indeed, if this is your structure, you MUST have a reference in the host to the VM containing the property regardless of whether it is a DP or not.
The same would be for the wizard. You would need a reference to the job view model in the wizard view model to get access to the property.
Finally, if you don't want to do that... maybe the selected job is the only thing you need... I suggest creating a static class or one using the singleton pattern that exposes a SelectedJob property and implements INotifyPropertyChanged. Use it as the backing store in your view models. Then you have one, global instance of the SelectedJob and you can expose it as a property on any view model you want.
HTH,
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
First, not apology needed. I'm not offended. On the contrary, I don't mind being educated from time to time
So I've read about half of this so far. I'm trying to digest it. It's one of the better explanations of DP's I've read so far.
So I created a 5 minute sample app[^]. The goal is to have the Main Window know when a Client in the user control is selected.
I learn best by doing, but I'm clearly both confused & wrong. Can you show me where the DP(s) go here and how to wire them up?
Let me finish your response and I'll reply soon.
Many thanks!
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
I fixed up your app to add a singleton class that will hold the currently selected client. Download it here[^].
You will see that in the classes folder I added a new class. It implements the singleton pattern and has a single property... SingletonClient. In the main view model and the client view model, I changed the SelectedClient property to use the new SingletonClient property of the new singleton class. In this way we are using a third-party class (with a single instance) to hold the currently selected client. Since we are doing this, we break the automatic binding support between the VM and the control. This is because the control will bind to the instance of the selected client rather than to the property itself. The fix is easy, we simply hook the PropertyChanged event on the singleton class from each view model that uses it. Inside that handler we check to see if the property that was changed is the one we are interested in. If it is, we manually raise PropertyChanged for the desired property on EACH viewmodel so the controls in each view get notified.
I added the same property to the MainViewViewModel and created a text block on the main view that will show you the name of the client that is currently selected. I also declared the main view model in xaml so you can see how to do that rather than in the code behind. 
You will see that the text block at the top of the main view is bound to the selected client property on the main view model and uses the path to get the name and display it. You will also see that your client view is untouched illustrating how we can keep things separated yet still pass information via a third-party that both view models agree on.
If you were unit testing this, you would simply mock the singleton class allowing you to still test each viewmodel in isolation.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing I forgot to mention is that to use a DP, you have to have a class that descends from the DependencyObject class. This means your class where you would use a DP would have to inherit from DependencyObject, Control, or some other subclass. In your sample, you would have to make ViewModelBase inherit from DependencyObject to be able to create DP's on your view models. This isn't really the normal way you would do it as DP's are typically on controls. If you were creating your own control then it would be appropriate to make the properties of that control DP's.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you
I am out right now. I'll grab & digest later tonight.
Thank you sir!
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so I looked at your code a few times and re-read this post. I understand what you've done here. Thanks for teaching me something. I do have some questions.
It seems to me that this is A LOT of code just to build a stand alone user control. Basically, there are now 5 components involved just to tell when the user clicked a list item in the user control. So really this isn't 'stand-alone' at all. In order to make it work there would have to be the singleton class, the User Control, and the host for the control. And, there's duplicate code in some places.
Again, I do get what you've done, but I can't believe that it takes this much effort to produce a stand alone user control.
Have I missed something here?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
You are correct that there are better ways to do this. I was building off of your example... not following the cleanest way to do it. Plus, that is sort of a moving target. What you think may be the cleanest way to do it I may think isn't. So my goal was to show you one way of achieving what you wanted using the framework you had setup.
The driving factor for my example is that you have a sub-view which you put into the content of the grid in the main view. You create a view model for both the host (main) view and the sub-view. The key thing here is to understand that despite declaring the sub-view as a 'user control' it isn't a control in the traditional sense of the word. That is why DP implementation is a bad choice in this situation. In fact, I hate the "user control" terminology because I think it muddies the waters. They should have called is a "user view" instead but since the class inherits from Control I can understand the naming. So your demo had a main view and a sub view both with view models attached to them. In order to communicate between those two view models in a way that doesn't create a dependency between them requires a third party. That could be command classes, a static or singleton class (as I demonstrated), and a messaging facility. The specifics aren't as important as choosing what is right for your situation and avoiding a dependency between the view models.
Circling back around I think I'm understanding where you want to go with this and where we are missing the mark. I think you want the picker to be a CUSTOM CONTROL so you can put it on the main page and have access to the selected item as a property on that control. That is very different than the approach you took in the demo app. The architecture with the views and view models threw me.
A custom control actually has nothing to do with MVVM or view models but rather is a marriage of a code file that inherits from control and a xaml template that skins the control typically defined in /Themes/generic.xaml. In this case you can add properties and methods to the class to create the behaviors you want that control to have. That is the time to use dependency properties... but they go on the control class.
Custom controls aren't for the faint of heart. There are a number of required moving parts and some very specific requirements. I've got a three part article series that takes you from a blank project to a working custom control but it is still in draft status. I'll try to hurry up and get it published. It would be a good read for you if you want to tackle turning the picker into a custom control.
|
|
|
|
|
Jason Gleim wrote: I think you want the picker to be a CUSTOM CONTROL so you can put it on the main
page and have access to the selected item as a property on that control
[Edited]
I looked at a CustomControl, and I don't think that's it.
I'd love to see your article when you're done with it.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
modified 9-Sep-13 14:14pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Why remove the SelectedJob property? The tree in JobListView has it's selecteditem bound to it. How would the VM know a job was selected??
This is hard to discuss without posting tons of code.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Slap my head sideways. This is what happens when I post after 3 hours sleep. With a DP, you provide a static Set... And Get... For the static reference.
|
|
|
|
|
I might be missing something, but from what I can see:
- The
TreeViewEx's SelectedItem is bound to the SelectedJob property on the JobListViewModel; - The
JobListView's SelectedJob is bound to the SelectJobWindowViewModel's SelectedJob property; - The
JobListViewModel's SelectedJob is not connected in any way to the JobListView's SelectedJob;
I think you need to connect the two SelectedJob properties. Something like this should work:
public JobListView()
{
InitializeComponent();
var binding = new Binding("DataContext.SelectedJob") { Source = this };
SetBinding(SelectedJobProperty, binding);
}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't set data bindings via code  . You get a slap on the wrist for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everybody,
I live in Côte d'Ivoire (West Africa)we're (me and my friend) going to start a project in WPF concerning a drug store. But we have never programed with WPF. So we need someone to coach us.
Please help.
|
|
|
|
|
There are many excellent articles here on Code Project that will take you through the processes of creating WPF apps. Have a look at articles by Sacha Barber and Josh Smith. There's also a free ebook here[^] that teaches you how to use WPF.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply but the file no longer exists.
|
|
|
|
|
It does. It's the internal site redirection that causes the problem. Once you've registered, just copy this[^] into your address bar and you get the download page.
|
|
|
|
|
MSDN provides a number of good material for beginners on WPF as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I want to create virtual classroom using silverlight and implement it in my asp.net web application. I found a project named silverdraw but it is not running well. I want to create it step by step. Plese help me ASAP..
Thanks in advance
modified 4-Sep-13 7:29am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member 10183457 wrote: I want to create it step by step
That's good. Step by step is definitely the way to code it.
Member 10183457 wrote: Plese help me ASAP
Okay. You start off by defining what your requirements are. I cannot stress enough how important this step is. Too many people think that they should just rush in and start coding and that they don't need to do the analysis phase - this is just plain wrong. Once you have figured out what your requirements are, that's when you can start to design your application. Factor in things such as how many people you expect to use the application. The number of concurrent users. How much is being saved out to database. What bandwidth you have available to you.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm working on a WPF application that has some parts that will be run on a Windows 8 Tablet. In this app is a treeview. Clicking the nodes with the mouse works fine. But touch does not. I get no response. Buttons, lists, combos, and other controls all respond. But the treeview does not.
Any ideas?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
