Develop Reference

(WPF/MVVM) What's the different between an IService and ViewModel?

I wanted to use SaveFileDialog in my ViewModel, But since it's not correct that bind to a View from ViewModel, I searched for ways to do that. But I found a few answers that doesn't completely separate View form ViewModel, Like this:
public interface IOService
{
void IMessageBox(string Message);
string ISaveFileDialog(string DefaultPath);
}
public class IDialog : IOService
{
public void IMessageBox(string Message)
{
System.Windows.MessageBox.Show(Message);
}
public string ISaveFileDialog(string DefaultPath)
{
System.Windows.Forms.SaveFileDialog dg = new SaveFileDialog
{
InitialDirectory = DefaultPath,
Filter = "PDF files (*.pdf) | *.pdf"
};
dg.ShowDialog();
if (dg.FileName == null)
dg.FileName = string.Empty;
return dg.FileName;
}
}
They said that, this is a Service and using it will separate View from ViewModel. But we have make an Instance from this in ViewModel:
IDialog iDialog = new IDialog();
So I wanna know, What's the diffrence between this method and calling MessageBox or SaveFileDialog from ViewModel directly?
Note: Also I find something that said I could use a Service like the above, But implement it like this:
public class ExportViewModel : BaseViewModel
{
IOService _IOService;
public ExportViewModel(IOService ioservice)
{
_IOService = ioservice;
.
.
}
}
But I don't know how send IOService as a parameter to ExportViewModel (Because we can't create Instances from an Interface!)

You shouldn't pop up dialogs directly from your VM for automated testability.
If you call MessageBox.Show(), your test will get stuck until a person closes the dialog.
If, instead, you use "IMessageBox", for unit tests, you can inject an implementation that doesn't actually show the dialog, but rather returns a specific value (the result).

It's an abstraction used to separate UI concerns from the view model, and to allow you a means to intercept these calls within unit tests. Intercepting these calls allows you to both prevent showing a dialog during a test (which will block execution of your tests, not good) and verify the view model is acting as expected.
There is nothing special about calling it a "Service" or calling the abstraction "IService". It's just an allusion to a common pattern
I need to do something
I can't do it myself
I'll find a service I can hire to do it
I found a service that can do this for me
This service will do it for me
You could just as well call it "IDontTouchUIStuffInMuhViewModel", but that's not as elegant.
Your second problem is solved trivially at runtime by providing an implementation of the interface to your view model. Your view model shouldn't care how it's implemented (polymorphism), so you can pass in a legit implementation at runtime and a fake one during testing.
You can also accomplish this by using Dependency Injection or Inversion of Control. By using a library such as Unity to instantiate your view models, all dependencies are automatically provided, based on how you configured the container.

Winforms - MVP Pattern: Using static ApplicationController to coordinate application?

Background
I'm building a two-tiered C# .net application:
Tier 1: Winforms client application using the MVP (Model-View-Presenter) design pattern.
Tier 2: WebAPI RESTful service sitting on top of Entity Framework and SQL Server.
Currently, I have questions relating to the overall architecture of the Winforms client application. I'm new to programming (about a year) but I've made good progress with this application. I want to step back and re-evaluate my current approach to check that I'm generally heading in the right direction.
Application Domain
The Winforms application is a fairly simple security personnel tracking application. The main view (Form) is the focus of the application, and has different sections which group content into functional areas (e.g. a section for tracking personnel schedules, a section for tracking who is assigned where, etc.). A menu on the side of the application launches secondary views (e.g. history, statistics, contacts, etc.). The idea is that the app could be used by a security office to organize daily operations and then keep a detailed history of everything in a database for reporting on in the future.
Technical Details
As mentioned, the Winforms client is built using the MVP pattern (passive view), focusing on using dependency injection as much as possible (via SimpleInjector IoC container). Each view (form) is paired up with a single presenter. The views implement interfaces, allowing the presenter to control the view (regardless of the concrete implementation). The view raises events for the presenter to subscribe to. Currently, presenters are not allowed to directly communicate to another presenter.
An application controller is used to coordinate the application. This is the area of my application architecture where I'm the most shakey (hence the post title). The application controller is currently used to:
Open new views (forms) and manage open forms.
Facilitate communication between application components via an event aggregator. One presenter publishes an event and any number of presenter can subscribe to that event.
Host session information (i.e. security context/logon, config data, etc.)
The IoC container is registered into the application controller at application start-up. This allows the application controller, for example, to create a presenter from the container, and then have all subsequent dependencies (view, services, etc.) to be automatically handled by the container.
Question
In order to make the Application Controller accessible to all presenters, I have created the controller as a static class.
public static class ApplicationController
{
private static Session _session;
private static INavigationWorkflow _workflow;
private static EventAggregator _aggregator;
#region Registrations
public static void RegisterSession(Session session) {}
public static void RegisterWorkflow(INavigationWorkflow workflow) {}
public static void RegisterAggregator(EventAggregator aggregator) {}
#endregion
#region Properties
public static Session Session
{
get { return _session; }
}
#endregion
#region Navigation
public static void NavigateToView(Constants.View view) {}
#endregion
#region Events
public static Subscription<TMessageType> Subscribe<TMessageType>(Action<TMessageType> action) {}
public static void Publish<TMessageType>(TMessageType message) {}
public static void Unsubscribe<TMessageType>(Subscription<TMessageType> subscription) {}
#endregion
}
Is this considered an acceptable practice to make a static class like this? I mean, it certainly works. It just feels... off? Are there any other holes that you can see in my architecture based on what I have described?
-
** EDIT **
This edit is made in response to Ric .Net’s answer posted below.
I have read through all of your suggestions. As I am committed to utilizing dependency injection to the fullest extent I can, I’m onboard with all of your suggestions. That was my plan from the beginning, but when I ran into things I didn’t understand how to accomplish via injection, I turned to the global static controller class to solve my problems (A god class it is becoming, indeed. Yikes!). Some of those questions still exist:
Event Aggregator
The defining line here is what should be considered optional, I think. I’ll provide a bit more context about my app before outlining my problem. Using web terminology, my main form generally acts like a layout view, hosting navigation controls and a notification section in the left menu, and partial views being hosted in the center. Coming back to winforms terminology, the partial views are just custom made UserControls that I treat like views, and each of them are paired up with their own presenter. I have 6 of these partial views hosted on my main form, and they serve as the meat and potatoes of the application.
As an example, one partial view lists available security guards and another lists potential patrol areas. In a typical use case, a user would drag an available security guard from the available list to one of the potential patrol areas, effectively becoming assigned to that area. The patrol area view would then update to show the assigned security guard and the guard would be removed from the available list view. Utilizing drag-and-drop events, I can handle this interaction.
My questions come when I need to handle other types of interactivity between the various partial views. For example, double clicking on guard that is assigned to a location (as seen in one partial view) could highlight that guard’s name on another partial view showing all personnel schedules, or bring up employee details/history on another partial view. I could see the graph/matrix of what partial views are interested in events occurring in other partial views as becoming quite complex, and I’m not sure how to handle that via injection. With 6 partial views, I wouldn’t want to inject the other 5 partial views/presenters into each one. I was planning on accomplishing this via the event aggregator. Another example I could think of is needing to update data on a separate view (its own form) based off an event that occurs on one of the partial views on the main form.
Session & Form Opener
I really like your thoughts here. I’m going to take these ideas and run with them, and see where I end up!
Security
What are your thoughts on controlling user access to certain functionality based on what type of account they have? The recommendations I’ve been reading online say that security could be implemented by modifying the views based on their account type. The thought being, if a user can’t interact with a UI element to kick off a certain task, then the presenter will never be asked to perform that task. I’m curious if you inject the WindowsUserContext into each presenter and do additional checks, especially for http service bound requests?
I haven’t done too much development on the service side of things yet, but for http service bound requests, I imagine you need to send security information along with each request so that the service can authenticate the request. My plan was to inject the WindowsUserContext directly into the winforms service agents that end up making the service requests (i.e. the security validation would not be coming from the presenter). In that case, the service agents could potentially do a last minute security check before sending off a request.

A static class is of course handy in some cases but there are a lot of downsides to this approach.
The tend to grow into something like a God class. You already see this happening. So this class violates SRP
A static class cannot have dependencies and therefore it needs to use the Service Locator anti pattern to get it's dependencies. This is not a problem perse if you consider this class to be part of the composition root, but nevertheless, this often heads the wrong way.
In the supplied code I see three responsibilities of this class.
EventAggregator
What you call Session information
A service to open other views
Some feedback on this three parts:
EventAggregator
Although this is a widely used pattern and sometimes it can be very powerful I myself am not fond of this pattern. I see this pattern as something that provides optional runtime data where in most cases this runtime data is not optional at all. In other words, only use this pattern for truly optional data. For everything that is not really optional, use hard dependencies, using constructor injection.
The ones that need the information in that case depend upon IEventListener<TMessage>. The one that publish the event, depend upon IEventPublisher<TMessage>.
public interface IEventListener<TMessage>
{
event Action<TMessage> MessageReceived;
}
public interface IEventPublisher<TMessage>
{
void Publish(TMessage message);
}
public class EventPublisher<TMessage> : IEventPublisher<TMessage>
{
private readonly EventOrchestrator<TMessage> orchestrator;
public EventPublisher(EventOrchestrator<TMessage> orchestrator)
{
this.orchestrator = orchestrator;
}
public void Publish(TMessage message) => this.orchestrator.Publish(message);
}
public class EventListener<TMessage> : IEventListener<TMessage>
{
private readonly EventOrchestrator<TMessage> orchestrator;
public EventListener(EventOrchestrator<TMessage> orchestrator)
{
this.orchestrator = orchestrator;
}
public event Action<TMessage> MessageReceived
{
add { orchestrator.MessageReceived += value; }
remove { orchestrator.MessageReceived -= value; }
}
}
public class EventOrchestrator<TMessage>
{
public void Publish(TMessage message) => this.MessageReceived(message);
public event Action<TMessage> MessageReceived = (e) => { };
}
To be able to guarantee events are stored in one single location, we extract that storage (the event) into its own class, the EventOrchestrator.
The registration is as follows:
container.RegisterSingleton(typeof(IEventListener<>), typeof(EventListener<>));
container.RegisterSingleton(typeof(IEventPublisher<>), typeof(EventPublisher<>));
container.RegisterSingleton(typeof(EventOrchestrator<>), typeof(EventOrchestrator<>));
Usage is trivial:
public class SomeView
{
private readonly IEventPublisher<GuardChanged> eventPublisher;
public SomeView(IEventPublisher<GuardChanged> eventPublisher)
{
this.eventPublisher = eventPublisher;
}
public void GuardSelectionClick(Guard guard)
{
this.eventPublisher.Publish(new GuardChanged(guard));
}
// other code..
}
public class SomeOtherView
{
public SomeOtherView(IEventListener<GuardChanged> eventListener)
{
eventListener.MessageReceived += this.GuardChanged;
}
private void GuardChanged(GuardChanged changedGuard)
{
this.CurrentGuard = changedGuard.SelectedGuard;
}
// other code..
}
If another view will receive a lot of events you could always wrap all IEventListeners of that View in a specific EventHandlerForViewX class which get all important IEventListener<> injected.
Session
In the question you define several ambient context variables as Session information. Exposing this kind of information through a static class promotes tight coupling to this static class and thus makes it more difficult to unit test parts of your application. IMO all information provided by Session is static (in the sense that it doesn't change throughout the lifetime of the application) data that could just as easily be injected into those parts that actually need this data. So Session should completely be removed from the static class. Some examples how to solve this in a SOLID manner:
Configuration values
The composition root is in charge of reading all information from the configuration source (e.g. your app.config file). This information can there be stored in a POCO class crafted for its usage.
public interface IMailSettings
{
string MailAddress { get; }
string DefaultMailSubject { get; }
}
public interface IFtpInformation
{
int FtpPort { get; }
}
public interface IFlowerServiceInformation
{
string FlowerShopAddress { get; }
}
public class ConfigValues :
IMailSettings, IFtpInformation, IFlowerServiceInformation
{
public string MailAddress { get; set; }
public string DefaultMailSubject { get; set; }
public int FtpPort { get; set; }
public string FlowerShopAddress { get; set; }
}
// Register as
public static void RegisterConfig(this Container container)
{
var config = new ConfigValues
{
MailAddress = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["MailAddress"],
DefaultMailSubject = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["DefaultMailSubject"],
FtpPort = Convert.ToInt32(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["FtpPort"]),
FlowerShopAddress = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["FlowerShopAddress"],
};
var registration = Lifestyle.Singleton.CreateRegistration<ConfigValues>(() =>
config, container);
container.AddRegistration(typeof(IMailSettings),registration);
container.AddRegistration(typeof(IFtpInformation),registration);
container.AddRegistration(typeof(IFlowerServiceInformation),registration);
}
And where you need some specific information, e.g. information to send an email you can just put IMailSettings in the constructor of the type needing the information.
This will also give you the possibility to test a component using different config values, which would be harder to do if all config information had to come from the static ApplicationController.
For security information, e.g. the logged on User the same pattern can be used. Define an IUserContext abstraction, create a WindowsUserContext implementation and fill this with the logged on user in the composition root. Because the component now depends on IUserContext instead of getting the user at runtime from the static class, the same component could also be used in an MVC application, where you would replace the WindowsUserContext with an HttpUserContext implementation.
Opening other forms
This is actually the hard part. I normally also use some big static class with all kinds of methods to open other forms. I don't expose the IFormOpener from this answer to my other forms, because they only need to know, what to do, not which form does that task for them. So my static class exposes this kinds of methods:
public SomeReturnValue OpenCustomerForEdit(Customer customer)
{
var form = MyStaticClass.FormOpener.GetForm<EditCustomerForm>();
form.SetCustomer(customer);
var result = MyStaticClass.FormOpener.ShowModalForm(form);
return (SomeReturnValue) result;
}
However....
I'm not at all happy with this approach, because over time this class grows and grows. With WPF I use another mechanism, which I think could also be used with WinForms. This approach is based on a message based architecture described in this and this awesome blogposts. Although at first the information looks as it is not at all related, it is the message based concept that let these patterns rock!
All my WPF windows implement an open generic interface, e.g. IEditView. And if some view needs to edit a customer, it just get's this IEditView injected. A decorator is used to actually show the view in pretty much the same way as the forementioned FormOpener does it. In this case I make use of a specific Simple Injector feature, called decorate factory decorator, which you can use to create forms whenever it is needed, just as the FormOpener used the container directly to create forms whenever it needs to.
So I did not really test this, so there could be some pitfalls with WinForms, but this code seems to work on a first and single run..
public class EditViewShowerDecorator<TEntity> : IEditView<TEntity>
{
private readonly Func<IEditView<TEntity>> viewCreator;
public EditViewShowerDecorator(Func<IEditView<TEntity>> viewCreator)
{
this.viewCreator = viewCreator;
}
public void EditEntity(TEntity entity)
{
// get view from container
var view = this.viewCreator.Invoke();
// initview with information
view.EditEntity(entity);
using (var form = (Form)view)
{
// show the view
form.ShowDialog();
}
}
}
The forms and decorator should be registered as:
container.Register(typeof(IEditView<>), new[] { Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly() });
container.RegisterDecorator(typeof(IEditView<>), typeof(EditViewShowerDecorator<>),
Lifestyle.Singleton);
Security
The IUserContext must the base for all security.
For the userinterface I normally hide all controls/buttons that a certain userrole doesn't have access to. The best place is to perform this in the Load event.
Because I use the command/handler pattern as described here for my all actions external of my forms/views I use a decorator to check if a user has permission to perform this certain command (or query).
I would advise you to read this post a few times until you really get the hang of it. Once you get familiar with this pattern you won't do anything else!
If you have any questions about these patterns and how to apply a (permission)decorator, add a comment!

mvvmcross IOS: How to callback from a ViewModel to a View

I have a MvxViewController and in the ViewDidLoad i bind the button click to the viewmodel. When the button is clicked I open another view in which I will need to return a string back to my first view
public override void ViewDidLoad ()
{
var set = this.CreateBindingSet<MyView1, MyView1ViewModel>();
set.Bind(myButton).To(vm => vm.MyButtonCommand);
set.Apply();
}
public ICommand MyButtonCommand
{
get
{
_myButtonCommand = _myButtonCommand ?? new MvxCommand(MyButtonCommandClick);
return _myButtonCommand;
}
}
private void MyButtonCommandClick()
{
ShowViewModel<ViewModelNumber2>();
}
After some logic is ran in my second view I want to return the string
private void SomeMethodInViewModelNumber2()
{
//Raise event that will get pickup up in MyView
//Or somehow get "SomeString"
if (OnMyResult != null)
OnMyResult ("SomeString");
}
The problem is that I don't want to send the string back using the messenger. I have my reasons but basically because ViewModelNumber2 can be opened from many different places and works slightly different and managing the different messages that would need to be sent back and where to subscribe to these messages would be a mess
Is there any way that I can do something like the below?
public override void ViewDidLoad ()
{
var set = this.CreateBindingSet<MyView1, MyView1ViewModel>();
set.Bind(myButton).To(vm => vm.MyButtonCommand).OnMyResult((myString) => {Process(myString)});
set.Apply();
}
Or perhaps when I create ViewModelNumber2 I should pass a callBack into the constructor and use that to send the string back from ViewModelNumber2 to MyView1ViewModel
ShowViewModel<ViewModelNumber2>(OnMyResult);
What is the best way to do this?

In short: I don't know what "the best way to do this" is.
The area of ChildViewModel-ParentViewModel messages is complicated - especially because on platforms like Android using Activities and WindowsPhone using Pages you have no guarantee that the ParentViewModel will be in memory when the Child is shown. (Note: this isn't a problem on iOS as its "app suspension" model is simpler)
When I do need one ViewModel returning data to another, then:
Often I try to implement the data collection views as "popup dialogs" rather than as "whole pages" - this makes the parent-child ViewModel relationship more correct - and ensures the parent ViewModel will be in memory when the child closes.
Often I recommend people use a Messenger-based technique like Greg describes in: http://www.gregshackles.com/2012/11/returning-results-from-view-models-in-mvvmcross/
often I've done this messaging via background services rather than via ViewModel-ViewModel messaging (a bit like the way screens are updated in https://github.com/MvvmCross/NPlus1DaysOfMvvmCross/tree/master/N-17-CollectABull-Part6)
Another solution I've used is to:
implement a IDropBoxService singleton - with an API like void Deposit(key, value) and bool TryCollect(key, out value)
allow the closing "child" ViewModels to leave "values" when they close
implement IVisible functionality in my "parent" ViewModel - like in https://github.com/MvvmCross/NPlus1DaysOfMvvmCross/blob/master/N-42-Lifecycles/Lifecycle.Core/ViewModels/FirstViewModel.cs#L10
use the IVisible method to check for messages
To implement anything perfectly, you really should add serialisation code to make sure this all works during "tombstoning" on all platforms... but often this is overkill - for a simple data collection dialog users often don't need "perfect" tombstoning support.

Open/Close View from ViewModel

I have an AddClientViewModel which is referenced by 2 views (AddClientView and SuggestedAddressesView). The AddClientView is a form which has a field for an address. The form has a validate button which validates the entered address using Geocoding. If more than one address is returned, the SuggestedAddressesView opens.
Here is how I am currently doing it:
AddClientViewModel:
private void ValidateExecute(object obj)
{
SuggestedAddresses = new ObservableCollection<DBHelper.GeocodeService.GeocodeResult>(GeoCodeTest.SuggestedAddress(FormattedAddress));
....
if (SuggestedAddresses.Count > 0)
{
var window = new SuggestedAddressesView(this);
window.DataContext = this;
window.Show();
}
}
Here is the SuggestedAddressesView constructor where AddClientViewModel inherits from ViewModelBase
public SuggestedAddressesView(ViewModelBase viewModel)
{
InitializeComponent();
viewModel.ClosingRequest += (sender, e) => this.Close();
}
The other problem I am having is when I call OnClosingRequest() from the AddClientViewModel...both the AddClientView and SuggestedAddressesView closes. I know this happens because both views reference the same ViewModel. This is not the behaviour I want. I would like to be able to independently close either Window.
Is opening a View from the ViewModel proper MVVM structure and how would I go about being able to close windows independently?

As soon as you refer to UI elements(In this case the View) from the VM, you're going against suggested MVVM Guidelines. With just that we can know creating the Window object in the VM is wrong.
So now onto rectifying this:
Firstly try to keep a 1 View <-> 1 VM in your application. It's cleaner and allows you to switch out View implementations with the same logic very easily. Adding multiple View's to the same VM even if not "ground-breaking" just makes it clumsy.
So now you got AddClientView and SuggestedAddressesView with their own VM. Great!
Implementing a View Open/Close from the VM:
Since we cannot access the View directly from our VM(to comply with standards), we can use approaches such as using a Messenger(MVVM Light), EventAggregator(PRISM) and so on to send a "message" from the VM to the View when you need to open/close a View and do the actual operation in the View.
This way the VM just initiates the message and can be unit-tested fine for the same operation and does not reference any UI elements.
Using a "Messenger" approach to handle View open:
As per your Logic, it is the AddClientViewModel which would have to ask for the SuggestedAddressesView to be opened.
Thus when you detect SuggestedAddresses.Count > 0, you would send a message to the AddClientView asking it to open up the SuggestedAddressesView.
In AddClientView.xaml.cs upon receiving this message, you would do what you're currently doing in the VM. Create an object of SuggestedAddressesView and call .Show() on it.
One extra step you would add in the above step's process is to assign the DataContext of SuggestedAddressesView as SuggestedAddressesViewModel.
That's it. Now what you have is, when AddClientViewModel wants SuggestedAddressesView shown, it sends a message to it's own View and the View in-turn creates and shows the SuggestedAddressesView. This way the VM does not reference any View's and we keep to holding MVVM standards.
Using a "Messenger" approach to handle View close:
Closing a View is pretty simple. Again when you need to close the View from the VM, you send a message to it's own View asking for it to be closed.
On receiving this message, the View pretty much closes itself via .Hide() / .Close() or however else you want to get rid of it.
In this each VM handles it's own View's closing and you don't have any inter-connected dependencies.
You can use this as a start point to guide you in handling "messages" for this approach. it has an attached download you can get and see how the Messenger works. This is with MVVM Light, if you do not use it or use something else/ your own MVVM implementation, use it as a guide to help get to what you need.

you can use RelayCommand so that you send the parameter as follows:
Command="{Binding CloseWindowCommand, Mode=OneWay}"
CommandParameter="{Binding ElementName=TestWindow}"
By using this you can close the individual views.
Example:
public ICommand CloseCommand
{
get
{
return new RelayCommand(OnClose, IsEnable);
}
}
public void OnClose(object param)
{
AddClientView/SuggestedAddressesView Obj = param as AddClientView/SuggestedAddressesView;
obj.Close();
}

To open window from ViewModel:
Create NavigationService.cs class for opening window:
Let NavigationService.cs
Now put following code in that class file.
public void ShowWindow1Screen(Window1ViewModel window1ViewModel)
{
Window1= new Window1();
Window1.DataContext = window1ViewModel;
Window1.Owner = Window1View;
Window1.ShowDialog();
}
then.
Create instance of NavigationService.cs class MainWindowViewModel file.
Then
Window1ViewModel window1ViewModel = new Vindow1ViewModel();
window1ViewModel.Name = MainWindowTextValue;
NavigationService navigationService = new NavigationService();
navigationService.ShowWindow1Screen(window1ViewModel);

Where to store application settings/state in a MVVM application

I'm experimenting with MVVM for the first time and really like the separation of responsibilities. Of course any design pattern only solves many problems - not all. So I'm trying to figure out where to store application state and where to store application wide commands.
Lets say my application connects to a specific URL. I have a ConnectionWindow and a ConnectionViewModel that support gathering this information from the user and invoking commands to connect to the address. The next time the application starts, I want to reconnect to this same address without prompting the user.
My solution so far is to create an ApplicationViewModel that provides a command to connect to a specific address and to save that address to some persistent storage (where it's actually saved is irrelevant for this question). Below is an abbreviated class model.
The application view model:
public class ApplicationViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public Uri Address{ get; set; }
public void ConnectTo( Uri address )
{
// Connect to the address
// Save the addres in persistent storage for later re-use
Address = address;
}
...
}
The connection view model:
public class ConnectionViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private ApplicationViewModel _appModel;
public ConnectionViewModel( ApplicationViewModel model )
{
_appModel = model;
}
public ICommand ConnectCmd
{
get
{
if( _connectCmd == null )
{
_connectCmd = new LambdaCommand(
p => _appModel.ConnectTo( Address ),
p => Address != null
);
}
return _connectCmd;
}
}
public Uri Address{ get; set; }
...
}
So the question is this: Is an ApplicationViewModel the right way to handle this? How else might you store application state?
EDIT: I'd like to know also how this affects testability. One of the primary reasons for using MVVM is the ability to test the models without a host application. Specifically I'm interested in insight on how centralized app settings affect testability and the ability to mock out the dependent models.

I generally get a bad feeling about code that has one view model directly communicating with another. I like the idea that the VVM part of the pattern should be basically pluggable and nothing inside that area of the code should depend of the existence of anything else within that section. The reasoning behind this is that without centralising the logic it can become difficult to define responsibility.
On the other hand, based on your actual code, it may just be that the ApplicationViewModel is badly named, it doesn't make a model accessible to a view, so this may simply be a poor choice of name.
Either way, the solution comes down to a break down of responsibility. The way I see it you have three things to achieve:
Allow the user to request to connect to an address
Use that address to connect to a server
Persist that address.
I'd suggest that you need three classes instead of your two.
public class ServiceProvider
{
public void Connect(Uri address)
{
//connect to the server
}
}
public class SettingsProvider
{
public void SaveAddress(Uri address)
{
//Persist address
}
public Uri LoadAddress()
{
//Get address from storage
}
}
public class ConnectionViewModel
{
private ServiceProvider serviceProvider;
public ConnectionViewModel(ServiceProvider provider)
{
this.serviceProvider = serviceProvider;
}
public void ExecuteConnectCommand()
{
serviceProvider.Connect(Address);
}
}
The next thing to decide is how the address gets to the SettingsProvider. You could pass it in from the ConnectionViewModel as you do currently, but I'm not keen on that because it increases the coupling of the view model and it isn't the responsibility of the ViewModel to know that it needs persisting. Another option is to make the call from the ServiceProvider, but it doesn't really feel to me like it should be the ServiceProvider's responsibility either. In fact it doesn't feel like anyone's responsibility other than the SettingsProvider. Which leads me to believe that the setting provider should listen out for changes to the connected address and persist them without intervention. In other words an event:
public class ServiceProvider
{
public event EventHandler<ConnectedEventArgs> Connected;
public void Connect(Uri address)
{
//connect to the server
if (Connected != null)
{
Connected(this, new ConnectedEventArgs(address));
}
}
}
public class SettingsProvider
{
public SettingsProvider(ServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
serviceProvider.Connected += serviceProvider_Connected;
}
protected virtual void serviceProvider_Connected(object sender, ConnectedEventArgs e)
{
SaveAddress(e.Address);
}
public void SaveAddress(Uri address)
{
//Persist address
}
public Uri LoadAddress()
{
//Get address from storage
}
}
This introduces tight coupling between the ServiceProvider and the SettingsProvider, which you want to avoid if possible and I'd use an EventAggregator here, which I've discussed in an answer to this question
To address the issues of testability, you now have a very defined expectancy for what each method will do. The ConnectionViewModel will call connect, The ServiceProvider will connect and the SettingsProvider will persist. To test the ConnectionViewModel you probably want to convert the coupling to the ServiceProvider from a class to an interface:
public class ServiceProvider : IServiceProvider
{
...
}
public class ConnectionViewModel
{
private IServiceProvider serviceProvider;
public ConnectionViewModel(IServiceProvider provider)
{
this.serviceProvider = serviceProvider;
}
...
}
Then you can use a mocking framework to introduce a mocked IServiceProvider that you can check to ensure that the connect method was called with the expected parameters.
Testing the other two classes is more challenging since they will rely on having a real server and real persistent storage device. You can add more layers of indirection to delay this (for example a PersistenceProvider that the SettingsProvider uses) but eventually you leave the world of unit testing and enter integration testing. Generally when I code with the patterns above the models and view models can get good unit test coverage, but the providers require more complicated testing methodologies.
Of course, once you are using a EventAggregator to break coupling and IOC to facilitate testing it is probably worth looking into one of the dependency injection frameworks such as Microsoft's Prism, but even if you are too late along in development to re-architect a lot of the rules and patterns can be applied to existing code in a simpler way.

If you weren't using M-V-VM, the solution is simple: you put this data and functionality in your Application derived type. Application.Current then gives you access to it. The problem here, as you're aware, is that Application.Current causes problems when unit testing the ViewModel. That's what needs to be fixed. The first step is to decouple ourselves from a concrete Application instance. Do this by defining an interface and implementing it on your concrete Application type.
public interface IApplication
{
Uri Address{ get; set; }
void ConnectTo(Uri address);
}
public class App : Application, IApplication
{
// code removed for brevity
}
Now the next step is to eliminate the call to Application.Current within the ViewModel by using Inversion of Control or Service Locator.
public class ConnectionViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public ConnectionViewModel(IApplication application)
{
//...
}
//...
}
All of the "global" functionality is now provided through a mockable service interface, IApplication. You're still left with how to construct the ViewModel with the correct service instance, but it sounds like you're already handling that? If you're looking for a solution there, Onyx (disclaimer, I'm the author) can provide a solution there. Your Application would subscribe to the View.Created event and add itself as a service and the framework would deal with the rest.

Yes, you are on the right track. When you have two controls in your system that need to communicate data, you want to do it in a way that is as decoupled as possible. There are several ways to do this.
In Prism 2, they have an area that is kind of like a "data bus". One control might produce data with a key that is added to the bus, and any control that wants that data can register a callback when that data changes.
Personally, I have implemented something I call "ApplicationState". It has the same purpose. It implements INotifyPropertyChanged, and anyone in the system can write to the specific properties or subscribe for change events. It is less generic than the Prism solution, but it works. This is pretty much what you created.
But now, you have the problem of how to pass around the application state. The old school way to do this is to make it a Singleton. I am not a big fan of this. Instead, I have an interface defined as:
public interface IApplicationStateConsumer
{
public void ConsumeApplicationState(ApplicationState appState);
}
Any visual component in the tree may implement this interface, and simply pass the Application state to the ViewModel.
Then, in the root window, when the Loaded event is fired, I traverse the visual tree and look for controls that want the app state (IApplicationStateConsumer). I hand them the appState, and my system is initialized. It is a poor-man's dependency injection.
On the other hand, Prism solves all of these problems. I kind of wish I could go back and re-architect using Prism... but it is a bit too late for me to be cost-effective.