I am building a WPF browser application with MVVM pattern.
I have a first page (ConsultInvoice) with a dataGrid. When I double click on one of the row I want to navigate to another page (EditInvoice) passing the selected row in argument to my constructor.
I know if I want do things properly I should use a dependency injection, but I don't really see how to use it here.
How can I simply pass this constructor?
ConsultInvoiceViewModel
private Invoice _selected;
public Invoice Selected
{
get
{
return _selected;
}
set
{
_selected = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Selected");
}
}
private void Edit()
{
EditInvoiceViewModel editInvoice = new EditInvoiceViewModel(Selected);
/* doing something here*/
}
public ICommand EditCommand
{
get
{
return editCommand ?? (editCommand = new RelayCommand(p => this.Edit(), p => this.CanEdit()));
}
}
EditInvoiceViewModel
public class EditInvoiceViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
public Context ctx = new Context();
Invoice invoice;
PreInvoice preInvoice;
#region properties
private ObservableCollection<PreInvoice> collection;
public ObservableCollection<PreInvoice> Collection
{
get
{
return collection;
}
set
{
collection = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Collection");
}
}
#endregion
public EditInvoiceViewModel(Invoice inv)
{
/* do stuff*/
}
}
Basically you should avoid passing such parameters into the ViewModels constructor, as wiring it with Inversion of Control/Dependency Injection becomes a pain. While you can use Abstract Factory pattern to resolve objects with runtime parameters, it's imho not suitable for ViewModels.
Instead I always suggest using a form of navigation pattern, similar to how Microsoft's Patterns & Practices team has done with Prism. There you have an INavigationAware interface which your ViewModels can implement. It has 2 methods, NavigateTo and NavigateFrom.
And there is a navigation service. The navigation service will switch the views and before switching calling NavigateFrom in the current ViewModel (if it implements it. One can use it to check if data is saved and if necessary cancel the navigation. After the new View has been loaded and the ViewModel assigned to it, call NavigateTo in the newly navigated ViewModel.
Here you'd pass the parameters required for the ViewModel, in your case invoiceId. Try avoid passing whole models or complex objects. Use the invoiceid to fetch the invoice data and to populate your editing ViewModel.
A basinc implementation from my former answer (can be found here):
public interface INavigationService
{
// T is whatever your base ViewModel class is called
void NavigateTo<T>() where T ViewModel;
void NavigateToNewWindow<T>();
void NavigateToNewWindow<T>(object parameter);
void NavigateTo<T>(object parameter);
}
public class NavigationService : INavigationService
{
private IUnityContainer container;
public NavigationService(IUnityContainer container)
{
this.container = container;
}
public void NavigateToWindow<T>(object parameter) where T : IView
{
// configure your IoC container to resolve a View for a given ViewModel
// i.e. container.Register<IPlotView, PlotWindow>(); in your
// composition root
IView view = container.Resolve<T>();
Window window = view as Window;
if(window!=null)
window.Show();
INavigationAware nav = view as INavigationAware;
if(nav!= null)
nav.NavigatedTo(parameter);
}
}
// IPlotView is an empty interface, only used to be able to resolve
// the PlotWindow w/o needing to reference to it's concrete implementation as
// calling navigationService.NavigateToWindow<PlotWindow>(userId); would violate
// MVVM pattern, where navigationService.NavigateToWindow<IPlotWindow>(userId); doesn't. There are also other ways involving strings or naming
// convention, but this is out of scope for this answer. IView would
// just implement "object DataContext { get; set; }" property, which is already
// implemented Control objects
public class PlotWindow : Window, IView, IPlotView
{
}
public class PlotViewModel : ViewModel, INotifyPropertyChanged, INavigationAware
{
private int plotId;
public void NavigatedTo(object parameter) where T : IView
{
if(!parameter is int)
return; // Wrong parameter type passed
this.plotId = (int)parameter;
Task.Start( () => {
// load the data
PlotData = LoadPlot(plotId);
});
}
private Plot plotData;
public Plot PlotData {
get { return plotData; }
set
{
if(plotData != value)
{
plotData = value;
OnPropertyChanged("PlotData");
}
}
}
}
An example of the INavigationAware interface used in Prism can be found on the projects github repository.
This makes it easy to pass parameter and async load your data (where there isn't any clean way to do this via constructor, as you can't await an async operation inside the constructor without locking, and doing this kind of things in the constructor is very discouraged).
Related
I have two identical views View1.xaml and View2.xaml and they both have a button button1 and a textfield textfield1. The idea is that when you press the button, the corresponding textfield is filled with some information. Both views use the same method for filling in the textfield (the views are literally identical in that sense).
My question is: how to write generic code using OOP principles and not break the MVVM pattern? My current way of performing this with RelayCommand:
The same code for ViewModel1 and ViewModel2:
public RelayCommand ButtonCommand { get; private set; }
#Constructor
ButtonCommand = new RelayCommand(ExecuteButtonCommand, CanExecuteButtonCommand);
#EndConstructor
private void ExecuteButtonCommand(object message)
{
//Some method to fill the corresponding textfield
}
private bool CanExecuteButtonCommand(object message)
{
return true;
}
Binding for the button in View1.xaml and View2.xaml:
<Button Command="{Binding Path=ButtonCommand, Mode=OneWay}" />
This is bad, because I have to write the same code for both ViewModels. I was trying to make a class ButtonCommand which inherits from RelayCommand, but because not every view will have this functionality, I can't achieve it using this method.
Rather than having a "Base" view model and two derived view models, have your two view models both use the same code defined elsewhere (ideally, both calling the same interface, injected with dependency injection).
This is the Composition over Inheritance principle.
When you're writing your tests, test that both view models call the interface, and test that the implementation of that interface does what it is supposed to do once.
This way, not only can you avoid writing your code twice, you can also avoid testing it twice, and it also allows you to follow other principles like the single responsibility principle.
This could be an way to go:
1 - Create a base viewmodel class:
public class YourBaseViewModel
{
public Object YourBaseProperty{get; set;}
public RelayCommand ButtonCommand { get; private set; }
private void ExecuteButtonCommand(object message)
{
//Some method to fill the corresponding textfield
}
private bool CanExecuteButtonCommand(object message)
{
return true;
}
}
2 - Inherit from the base viewmodel:
public class ViewModel1:YourBaseViewModel
{
// ....
}
public class ViewModel2:YourBaseViewModel
{
// ....
}
EDIT:
If you have another base class you could do:
public class YourBaseViewModel:YourReallyBaseViewModel
{
// ....
}
public class ViewModel1:YourBaseViewModel
{
// ....
}
public class ViewModel2:YourBaseViewModel
{
// ....
}
This is an XY problem. You're asking for a way to solve Y (not duplicate the same ButtonCommand but in actuality), your problem is X (you already have duplication in your code)
I have two identical views View1.xaml and View2.xaml
I'd like to add, that you've also stated you don't have only two identical views, there's more.
The best way to resolve this is to have a parent ParentViewModel that can construct the child ViewModels
So first, we'll need an interface for the child view model
IMyViewModel
public interface IMyViewModel
{
void Load();
}
Next, the implementation
MyViewModel
public class MyViewModel : ViewModelBase, IMyViewModel
{
public MainViewModel()
{
ButtonCommand = new RelayCommand(ExecuteButtonCommand, CanExecuteButtonCommand);
}
public RelayCommand ButtonCommand { get; private set; }
public void Load()
{
//Example load logic
InvalidateCommands();
}
private void InvalidateCommands()
{
ButtonCommand.RaiseCanExecuteChanged();
}
private void ExecuteButtonCommand(object message)
{
//Some method to fill the corresponding textfield
}
private bool CanExecuteButtonCommand(object message)
{
return true;
}
}
And lastly the ParentViewModel which has the responsibility of creating the view models. Please note, I did not tell it WHEN to create the ViewModels, I will leave that up to you.
Parent View Model
public class ParentViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
private Func<IMyViewModel> _myVmCreator;
public ParentViewModel(Func<IMyViewModel> myVmCreator)
{
_friendEditVmCreator = friendEditVmCreator;
}
public ObservableCollection<IMyViewModel> MyViewModels { get; private set; }
private IMyViewModel CreateAndLoadMyViewModel()
{
var myVm = _myVmCreator();
MyViewModels.Add(myVm);
myVm.Load();
return myVm;
}
}
This will allow you to create any number of MyViewModels, or any other type of ViewModel as long as it implements IMyViewModel.
The above example is derived from this course : https://www.pluralsight.com/courses/wpf-mvvm-test-driven-development-viewmodels
I highly recommend it.
Here's a simplified ViewModel:
public class EditViewModel : BaseViewModel
{
private Item _currentItem;
public Item CurrentItem
{
get
{ return _currentItem; }
set
{
if (_currentItem != value)
{
_currentItem = value;
OnPropertyChanged("CurrentItem");
}
}
}
private ObservableCollection<Property> _itemProperties;
public ObservableCollection<Property> ItemProperties
{
get { return _itemProperties; }
set
{
_itemProperties = value;
OnPropertyChanged("ItemProperties");
}
}
public void AddProperty() //this is called from an ICommand
{
Property p = new Property{ ItemId = CurrentItem.ItemId };;
CurrentItem.Properties.Add(p);
ItemProperties.Add(p);
}
}
What I'd like to do is to separate out the business logic here into a separate class. It keeps all the annoying MVVM boilerplate out of the way of the useful stuff, and in theory should lead to organizing the code into a more testable state.
We're starting to do this by creating separate "Logic" classes which inherit from BaseViewModel and then have the actual ViewModels inherit from their logic class. So:
public class EditLogic : BaseViewModel
{ }
public class EditViewModel : EditLogic
{ }
Then the logic goes in the logic class.
For some business logic this separation is simple - nice and clean. However, in the example I've given above I can't see a simple way of pulling that method out without a lot of unnecessary faff. Something like this (untested):
public class EditLogic : BaseViewModel
{
public Property GetNewProperty(Item currentItem)
{
Property p = new Property{ ItemId = currentItem.ItemId };
currentItem.Properties.Add(p);
return p;
}
}
public class EditViewModel : BaseViewModel
{
public void AddProperty() //this is called from an ICommand
{
ItemProperties(GetNewProperty(CurrentItem))
}
}
This seems potentially confusing - since it's relying on CurrentItem implicitly being passed by reference - and unnecessarily convoluted to no great gain.
This is, of course, a very simple example which isn't worth fussing over. But it illustrates the point that in MVVM it's very easy to end up mixing your presentation/binding code with your business logic for the sake of convenience.
I could move some of the properties out from the EditViewModel to the EditLogic but then we're losing the advantages of separating these two out in the first place.
So: is it worth bothering with this at all? If so, how far should we pursue it? And are there any better methods for maintaining separation?
What you are looking for are services.
public interface IPropertyService
{
Property GetNewProperty(Item currentItem);
}
You will of course need an implementation:
public class MyPropertyService : IPropertyService
{
public Property GetNewProperty(Item currentItem)
{
//TODO
}
}
You can then inject this service into the constructor of your view model as a dependency.
public class MyViewModel
{
private IPropertyService _PropertyService;
public MyViewModel(IPropertyService propertyService)
{
_PropertyService = propertyService;
}
public void AddProperty() //this is called from an ICommand
{
Property p = _PropertyService.GetProperty(CurrentItem);
CurrentItem.Properties.Add(p);
ItemProperties.Add(p);
}
}
This will ensure that you don't need to create a myriad of view model base classes for your business logic. Instead, encapsulate your business logic in services and pass them into view models that depend on them.
I'm writing a WPF application using MVVM. My ViewModels are quite large and have a lot of logic associated with them (filtering, searching, writing to the database, etc), so I've decided to try to separate out the logic of the ViewModels to a "Presenter" class like is used in MVP.
So, my basic setup is this:
public class FooViewModel : ViewModelBase, IFooViewModel
{
private IFooPresenter presenter;
private ObservableCollection<FooModel> fooCollection;
public FooViewModel()
{
presenter = FooPresenter(this);
}
public ObservableCollection<FooModel> FooCollection
{
get { return fooCollection; }
set
{
fooCollection = value;
OnPropertyChanged("FooCollection");
}
}
public void FooCommandMethod(object obj)
{
presenter.DoStuff();
}
}
public class FooPresenter : IFooPresenter
{
private IFooViewModel viewModel;
public FooPresenter(IFooViewModel viewModel)
{
this.viewModel = viewModel;
}
public void DoStuff()
{
viewModel.FooCollection.Add(new FooModel());
//etc etc, make whatever ViewModel updates are needed
}
}
I feel like it is bad practice to have this circular dependency (View Model depends on Presenter and Presenter depends on View Model). These classes could be combined into one large ViewModel class, but I do like how clean this approach keeps my View Models, all that they do is hold commands that call presenter functions and hold the Model/collections of the Model. I also dislike the dependency of the ViewModel on the concrete implementation of the Presenter. One approach I have toyed with is using a Service Locator type class, so it would look like this:
public FooViewModel()
{
presenter = PresenterLocator.GetPresenter<IFooPresenter>(this);
}
What I would prefer, though, is to use Constructor Dependency Injection to inject the controller when I create the ViewModel. The problem with this is that this creates a circular dependency in the constructors of the ViewModels and Presenters, which causes my application to crash when I attempt to achieve this using Unity. It ends up looking like this:
public FooViewModel(IFooPresenter presenter)
{
this.presenter = presenterl
}
And
public FooPresenter(IFooViewModel viewModel(
{
this.viewModel = viewModel;
}
So, my concern is that my design approach is inherently flawed due to this. Nevertheless, I really like how clean it keeps my ViewModels and separates them from Business Logic. Is there a better way I could be designing this? Is there any way I can use DI to achieve this? Or by doing that am I essentially trying to force a DI container to act as a Service Locator?
First of all, I would not call this a "presenter". This introduces an unwanted confusion, in fact your presenter doesn't present anything, it is just an extracted bit of code from a large view model. Have you considered calling it just "a service"? A SearchService for example?
Another question is: does such service always depend on a view model? Or rather, could it depend on lower layers (unit of works/repos for example) or other services? Note that because your service depends on a view model and you pass a view model directly there, you loose a control of what happens to the view model inside a service. Your DoStuff method is a perfect example, it does something to a view model, alters its state. Instead, you could have
public class FooViewModel : ViewModelBase, IFooViewModel
{
private IFooService service;
private ObservableCollection<FooModel> fooCollection;
public FooViewModel()
{
service = FooService(this);
}
public void FooCommandMethod(object obj)
{
// the responsibility on consuming service outcome is still here!
this.FooCollection.Add( service.CreateNewModel() );
}
}
public class FooService : IFooService
{
// constructor parameter not needed now
public FooService()
{
this.viewModel = viewModel;
}
public FooModel CreateModel()
{
return ...;
}
}
If you still insist however on having a circular dependency, make it so that one of the two has a parameterless constructor and a property injector:
public class FooViewModel : IFooViewModel
{
private IFooService _service;
public FooViewModel( IFooService service )
{
this._service = service;
this._service.Model = this;
}
}
public class FooService : IFooService
{
public IFooViewModel Model { get; set; }
}
This way Unity asked for a IFooViewModel will resolve a parameterless IFooService and then execute the constructor that sets the cycle for both parties.
I'm learning to apply MVP to a simple WinForms app (only one form) in C# and encountered an issue while creating the main presenter in static void Main(). Is it a good idea to expose a View from the Presenter in order to supply it as a parameter to Application.Run()?
Currently, I've implemented an approach which allows me to not expose the View as a property of Presenter:
static void Main()
{
IView view = new View();
Model model = new Model();
Presenter presenter = new Presenter(view, model);
presenter.Start();
Application.Run();
}
The Start and Stop methods in Presenter:
public void Start()
{
view.Start();
}
public void Stop()
{
view.Stop();
}
The Start and Stop methods in View (a Windows Form):
public void Start()
{
this.Show();
}
public void Stop()
{
// only way to close a message loop called
// via Application.Run(); without a Form parameter
Application.Exit();
}
The Application.Exit() call seems like an inelegant way to close the Form (and the application). The other alternative would be to expose the View as a public property of the Presenter in order to call Application.Run() with a Form parameter.
static void Main()
{
IView view = new View();
Model model = new Model();
Presenter presenter = new Presenter(view, model);
Application.Run(presenter.View);
}
The Start and Stop methods in Presenter remain the same. An additional property is added to return the View as a Form:
public void Start()
{
view.Start();
}
public void Stop()
{
view.Stop();
}
// New property to return view as a Form for Application.Run(Form form);
public System.Windows.Form View
{
get { return view as Form(); }
}
The Start and Stop methods in View (a Windows Form) would then be written as below:
public void Start()
{
this.Show();
}
public void Stop()
{
this.Close();
}
Could anyone suggest which is the better approach and why? Or there even better ways to resolve this issue?
What about the following:
// view
public void StartApplication() // implements IView.StartApplication
{
Application.Run((Form)this);
}
// presenter
public void StartApplication()
{
view.StartApplication();
}
// main
static void Main()
{
IView view = new View();
Model model = new Model();
Presenter presenter = new Presenter(view, model);
presenter.StartApplication();
}
That way, you don't need to expose the view to the outside. In addition, the view and the presenter know that this view has been started as a "main form", which might be a useful piece of information.
I would go for the second approach.
You could also get rid of the extra property by simply casting view to form in the void Main, since you know it is a form anyway at that point (I see no reason to make it more generic than that since it just starts the winform app)
Application.Run(view as Form);
Things get a bit more complex if you allow more than one way to exit the application (e.g.: a menu item for exiting), or if you prevent closing of the application under certain conditions. In either case, the actual invocation of application closing should usually be invoked from presenter code rather than by simply closing the concrete view. This can be accomplished by using either the Application.Run() or Application.Run(ApplicationContext) overloads and exposing the application exit action via inversion of control.
The exact approach to registering and using the application exit action would depend on the IoC mechanism (e.g.: service locator and/or dependency injection) that you are using. Since you haven't mentioned what your current IoC approach might be, here's a sample that's independent of any particular IoC frameworks:
internal static class Program
{
[STAThread]
private static void Main()
{
ApplicationActions.ExitApplication = Application.Exit;
MainPresenter mainPresenter = new MainPresenter(new MainView(), new Model());
mainPresenter.Start();
Application.Run();
}
}
public static class ApplicationActions
{
public static Action ExitApplication { get; internal set; }
}
public class MainPresenter : Presenter
{
//...
public override void Stop()
{
base.Stop();
ApplicationActions.ExitApplication();
}
}
This basic approach could be adapted quite easily to your preferred IoC approach. For example, if you're using a service locator, you would probably want to consider removing at least the setter on the ApplicationActions.ExitApplication property, and storing the delegate in the service locator instead. If the ExitApplication getter were to remain, it would provide a simple façade to the service locator instance retriever. e.g.:
public static Action ExitApplication
{
get
{
return ServiceLocator.GetInstance<Action>("ExitApplication");
}
}
You could do it in a hundred ways to achieve the ultimate goal of separability of concerns. There is no hard and fast rule here, the basic idea is that presenter deals with presentation logic of the view, while the view has only the dumb knowledge of its own GUI specific classes and stuffs. Some ways I can think of (to broadly put):
1) View kick-starts things and let it decide its presenter. You start like, new View().Start();
// your reusable MVP framework project
public interface IPresenter<V>
{
V View { get; set; }
}
public interface IView<P>
{
P Presenter { get; }
}
public static class PresenterFactory
{
public static P Presenter<P>(this IView<P> view) where P : new()
{
var p = new P();
(p as dynamic).View = view;
return p;
}
}
// your presentation project
public interface IEmployeeView : IView<EmployeePresenter>
{
void OnSave(); // some view method
}
public class EmployeePresenter : IPresenter<IEmployeeView>
{
public IEmployeeView View { get; set; } // enforced
public void Save()
{
var employee = new EmployeeModel
{
Name = View.Bla // some UI element property on IEmployeeView interface
};
employee.Save();
}
}
// your view project
class EmployeeView : IEmployeeView
{
public EmployeePresenter Presenter { get; } // enforced
public EmployeeView()
{
Presenter = this.Presenter(); // type inference magic
}
public void OnSave()
{
Presenter.Save();
}
}
A variant of the above approach would be to enforce stronger generic constraint on view and presenter, but I dont think the complexity outweighs the benefits. Something like this:
// your reusable MVP framework project
public interface IPresenter<P, V> where P : IPresenter<P, V> where V : IView<P, V>
{
V View { get; set; }
}
public interface IView<P, V> where P : IPresenter<P, V> where V : IView<P, V>
{
P Presenter { get; }
}
public static class PresenterFactory
{
public static P Presenter<P, V>(this IView<P, V> view)
where P : IPresenter<P, V>, new() where V : IView<P, V>
{
return new P { View = (V)view };
}
}
// your presentation project
public interface IEmployeeView : IView<EmployeePresenter, IEmployeeView>
{
//...
}
public class EmployeePresenter : IPresenter<EmployeePresenter, IEmployeeView>
{
//...
}
Disadvantages
interacting between forms are less intuitive to me.
Steps involved:
implement IEmployeeView
instantiate presenter by calling PresenterFactory and passing this from the view constructor
ensure view events are wired to their corresponding presenter methods
start off, like new EmployeeView()....
2) Presenter kick-starts things and let it decide its view. You start like, new Presenter().Start();
In this approach presenter instantiates its own view (like approach 1) by means of some dependenchy injection or so, or view can be passed to presenter's constructor. E.g.
// your reusable MVP framework project
public abstract class IPresenter<V> // OK may be a better name here
{
protected V View { get; }
protected IPresenter()
{
View = ...; // dependenchy injection or some basic reflection, or pass in view to ctor
(View as dynamic).Presenter = this;
}
}
public interface IView<P>
{
P Presenter { get; set; }
}
// your presentation project
public interface IEmployeeView : IView<EmployeePresenter>
{
void OnSave(); // some view method
}
public class EmployeePresenter : IPresenter<IEmployeeView>
{
public void Save()
{
var employee = new EmployeeModel
{
Name = View.Bla // some UI element property on IEmployeedView interface
};
employee.Save();
}
}
// your view project
class EmployeeView : IEmployeeView
{
public EmployeePresenter Presenter { get; set; } // enforced
public void OnSave()
{
Presenter.Save();
}
}
Steps involved:
implement IEmployeeView
ensure view events are wired to their corresponding presenter methods
start off, like new EmployeePresenter(....
3) Event based, observer style
Here you could either encapsulate presenter in view (instantiate presenter in view) like approach 1 or encapsulate view in presenter (instantiate view in presenter) like approach 2 but in my experience latter will always be the cleaner design to work with. An e.g. of latter:
// your reusable MVP framework project
public abstract class IPresenter<V> where V : IView
{
protected V View { get; }
protected IPresenter()
{
View = ...; // dependenchy injection or some basic reflection, or pass in view to ctor
WireEvents();
}
protected abstract void WireEvents();
}
// your presentation project
public interface IEmployeeView : IView
{
// events helps in observing
event Action OnSave; // for e.g.
}
public class EmployeePresenter : IPresenter<IEmployeeView>
{
protected override void WireEvents()
{
View.OnSave += OnSave;
}
void OnSave()
{
var employee = new EmployeeModel
{
Name = View.Bla // some UI element property on IEmployeedView interface
};
employee.Save();
}
}
// your view project
class EmployeeView : IEmployeeView
{
public event Action OnSave;
void OnClicked(object sender, EventArgs e) // some event handler
{
OnSave();
}
}
// you kick off like new EmployeePresenter()....
Disadvantage:
You have to wire events on both view and presenter sides - double the work
Steps involved:
implement IEmployeeView
ensure iview events are called from view event handler methods
ensure iview event members are initialized from presenter
start off, like new EmployeePresenter()....
Limitations of language sometimes make design patterns more difficult. For e.g, had multiple inheritance been possible in C#, it was only a matter of having an abstract base view class with all the implementation details except UI specific components which could be then implemented by view class. No presenters, classic polymorphism and dead simple! Unfortunately this is not possible since most view classes in .NET (like Form of WinForms) already inherits from a super view class. So we have to implement an interface and go for composition. Also, C# doesnt let you have non-public members in an interface implementation, so we are forced to make all members specified in IEmployeeView public which breaks the natural encapsulation rules of the view class (i.e. other views in the view project can see details of EmployeeView irrelevant to them). Anyway, using power of C#'s extension methods a much simpler but very limited approach can be taken.
4) Extension method approach
This is just silly.
// your presentation project
public interface IEmployeeView
{
void OnSave(); // some view method
}
public static class EmployeePresenter // OK may need a better name
{
public void Save(this IEmployeeView view)
{
var employee = new EmployeeModel
{
Name = view.Bla // some UI element property on IEmployeedView interface
};
employee.Save();
}
}
// your view project
class EmployeeView : IEmployeeView
{
public void OnSave()
{
this.Save(); // that's it. power of extensions.
}
}
Disadvantages:
fairly unusable for anything remotely complex
Steps involved:
implement IEmployeeView
ensure this.... extension method is called from view events
kick off things by calling new View...
Of all 2 and 3 look better to me.
using MVP, what is the normal order of construction and dependency injection.
normally you create a presenter for each view and pass the view into the presenter on constructor. But what if you have:
A Service that multiple views need to listen to events on.
Multiple views all pointing to the same data model cache.
can someone display a normal flow of info from a user click to data coming back in a service from a server.
Here is what I do:
First, I define theses interfaces:
public interface IView<TPresenter>
{
TPresenter Presenter { get; set; }
}
public interface IPresenter<TView, TPresenter>
where TView : IView<TPresenter>
where TPresenter : IPresenter<TView, TPresenter>
{
TView View { get; set; }
}
Then this abstract presenter class:
public abstract class AbstractPresenter<TView, TPresenter> : IPresenter<TView, TPresenter>
where TView : IView<TPresenter>
where TPresenter : class, IPresenter<TView, TPresenter>
{
protected TView view;
public TView View
{
get { return this.view; }
set
{
this.view = value;
this.view.Presenter = this as TPresenter;
}
}
}
The view is injected via a property, instead of the constructor, to allow the bi-directional affection in the setter. Notice that a safe cast is needed...
Then, my concrete presenter is something like :
public class MyPresenter : AbstractPresenter<IMyView, MyPresenter>
{
//...
}
Where IMyView implements IView. A concrete view type must exists (e.g. MyView), but it's the container that resolves it:
I register MyPresenter type as itself in the container, with a transient behavior.
I register MyView as an IMyView in the container with a transient behavior.
I then asks for a MyPresenter to the container.
Container instanciate a MyView
It instanciates a MyPresenter
It inject the view into the presenter through the AbstractPresenter.View property.
The setter code completes the bi-directional association
The container returns the couple Presenter/View
It allows you to inject other dependencies (services, repos) into both your view and your presenter. But in the scenario you described, I recommend you to inject services and caches into the presenter, instead of the view.
In WinForms, I prefer a simple approach. Usually you're dealing with a few UserControls on a design surface -- make these your view classes. .NET creates the control hierarchy for you (via InitializeComponent). If you use the Passive View pattern, each view then instantiates it's presenter. (You can do this either directly or by asking an IOC container.) Use constructor injection to pass a reference to the view's interface to the presenter's constructor. The presenter can then wire itself up to view events. Repeat the process for the model: the presenter instantiates a model and wires up to its events. (In this case you don't need the constructor injection since Passive View says the presenter keeps a reference to the model, not vice versa.)
The only nit I've found with this approach is properly managing lifetimes of the model and presenter. You want to keep the view as simple as possible, so you probably don't want it maintaining a reference to the presenter. However, that means you've got this presenter object hanging around with event handlers tied to your view. This setup prevents your view from being garbage collected. One solution is to have your view publish an event that indicates it's closing. The presenter would receive the event and remove both its model and view subscriptions. The objects in your web are now properly dereferenced and the garbage collector can go about its work.
You wind up with something like the following:
public interface IView
{
...
event Action SomeEvent;
event EventHandler Disposed;
...
}
// Note that the IView.Disposed event is implemented by the
// UserControl.Disposed event.
public class View : UserControl, IView
{
public event Action SomeEvent;
public View()
{
var presenter = new Presenter(this);
}
}
public interface IModel
{
...
event Action ModelChanged;
...
}
public class Model : IModel
{
...
public event Action ModelChanged;
...
}
public class Presenter
{
private IView MyView;
private IModel MyModel;
public Presenter(View view)
{
MyView = view;
MyView.SomeEvent += RespondToSomeEvent;
MyView.Disposed += ViewDisposed;
MyModel = new Model();
MyModel.ModelChanged += RespondToModelChanged;
}
// You could take this a step further by implementing IDisposable on the
// presenter and having View.Dispose() trigger Presenter.Dispose().
private void ViewDisposed(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
MyView.SomeEvent -= RespondToSomeEvent;
MyView.Disposed -= ViewDisposed;
MyView = null;
MyModel.Modelchanged -= RespondToModelChanged;
MyModel = null;
}
}
You can decouple this example a step further by using IOC and asking your IOC container for implementations of IModel (in the Presenter class) and IPresenter (in the View class).
interface IEmployee
{
int EmployeeId {get;}
string FirstName {get;}
string LastName {get;}
}
interface IEmployeeRepository
{
void SaveEmployee(IEmployee employee);
IEmployee GetEmployeeById(int employeeId);
IEmployee[] Employees { get; }
}
interface IEmployeeView
{
event Action<IEmployee> OnEmployeeSaved;
}
interface IEmployeeController
{
IEmployeeView View {get;}
IEmployeeRepository Repository {get;}
IEmployee[] Employees {get;}
}
partial class EmployeeView: UserControl, IEmployeeView
{
public EmployeeView()
{
InitComponent();
}
}
class EmployeeController:IEmployeeController
{
private IEmployeeView view;
private IEmployeeRepository repository;
public EmployeeController(IEmployeeView view, IEmployeeRepository repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
this.view = view;
this.view.OnEmployeeSaved+=new Action<IEmployee>(view_OnEmployeeSaved);
}
void view_OnEmployeeSaved(IEmployee employee)
{
repository.SaveEmployee(employee);
}
public IEmployeeView View
{
get
{
return view;
}
}
public IEmployeeRepository Repository
{
get
{
return repository;
}
}
public IEmployee[] Employees
{
get
{
return repository.Employees;
}
}
}
WinformsMVP is a very good MVP framework for Windows forms. You can easily inject an service across multiple views easily using this framework. This is a good article with a sample source code explains how to use the framework.