Develop Reference

How to bind mdiContainer children to viewModel property?

I am using CodePlex wpfmdi container for my WPF application.
I need to bind MdiContainer's children to a viewModel property.
<mdi:MdiContainer Name="Container" Grid.Row="1" Background="GhostWhite" Children="{Binding Path=Container}"/>
If I do this I am getting this error:
Object of type 'System.Windows.Data.Binding' cannot be converted to type 'System.Collections.ObjectModel.ObservableCollection`1[WPF.MDI.MdiChild]'
This is what the Children property in MdiContainer looks like:
public ObservableCollection<MdiChild> Children { get; set; }
What am I doing wrong?

The Children property is not exposed as a dependency property, which means you cannot bind it. Furthermore, it is initialized once in the constructor of the MdiContainer type and then a handler is added to the CollectionChanged event of the underlying ObservableCollection<MdiChild>. It is never updated or removed.
Therefore, although the Children property has a setter, it will break the control if you use it to set a different collection. This also implies that you cannot simply create attached properties to expose a bindable Children dependency property.
Apart from that, MdiChild is a Control, so it actually contradicts the purpose of your view model. If you expose a collection of user interface controls from your view model this conflicts with the MVVM pattern. View models should not have any knowledge about the view. However, the MDI controls do not seem to follow the usual WPF practices for custom controls, so there is not much room for improvement here, data templating is not supported, the MdiContainer is a UserControl and there are very limited dependency properties.
If you really want to continue working with this control with your current approach, you could:
Create a custom attached behavior to synchronize your view model collection with the Children collection of the MdiContainer and vice-versa, see XAML behaviors in WPF.
Use the Loaded event to assign the Children collection to your view model property.
<mdi:MdiContainer Name="Container" Grid.Row="1" Background="GhostWhite" Loaded="MdiContainer_OnLoaded">
private void MdiContainer_OnLoaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
var mdiContainer = (MdiContainer)sender;
var dataContext = (Main)mdiContainer.DataContext;
if (dataContext == null)
return;
dataContext.Children = mdiContainer.Children;
}
Use an EventTrigger on the Loaded event with a custom trigger action that sets the Children collection. This is just a different variant of the previous approach that does not require code-behind.
The new XAML behaviors for WPF package, which replaces the legacy Blend behaviors from the System.Windows.Interactivity namespace already includes such a trigger action. Install the Microsoft.Xaml.Behaviors.Wpf NuGet package and use this:
<mdi:MdiContainer Name="Container" Grid.Row="1" Background="GhostWhite">
<behaviors:Interaction.Triggers>
<behaviors:EventTrigger EventName="Loaded">
<behaviors:ChangePropertyAction TargetObject="{Binding DataContext, ElementName=Container}"
PropertyName="Children"
Value="{Binding Children, ElementName=Container}"/>
</behaviors:EventTrigger>
</behaviors:Interaction.Triggers>
</mdi:MdiContainer>
Note that with these approaches, you either synchronize to your own collection or you work directly with the collection of the MdiContainer that you passed to your view model. These are only workarounds. If you would want to implement this in a clean and MVVM compliant way, I think you would need to extend or fix the control itself, which is rather costly and not recommendable, since it seems to be dead anyway.

WPF + DevExpress UpdateSourceTrigger

I would like to add to every control's binding the "UpdateSourceTrigger=PropertyChanged".
I could realize that by just writing for every control:
Text/EditValue/Stuff="{Binding x, UpdateSourceTrigger=PropertyChanged}"
But if possible, I would like to avoid this approach, since it is just redundant xaml code I would have to write over and over again, instead of reusing once piece of code.
A style is not an option, because the object bindings differ from xaml to xaml.
Since DevExpress is in use, we make use of the ExtensionMethod
DevExpress.Mvvm.POCO.POCOViewModelExtensions.RaisePropertiesChanged(this);
But the problem here: Imagine editing a TextEdit (Clicking into the TextEdit, typing stuff) and while the cursor is still in the TextEdit field, call the extension method mentioned above. The TextEdit's EditValue will be reset to the old value, since the PropertyChanged didn't call before.
Is there any way to modify application wide all binding behaviour at once?

Is there any way to modify application wide all binding behaviour at once?
No, different dependency properties have different default values for the UpdateSourceTrigger property, but you could create a custom binding markup extension:
public class PropertyChangedBinding : Binding
{
public PropertyChangedBinding()
:base()
{
UpdateSourceTrigger = UpdateSourceTrigger.PropertyChanged;
}
public PropertyChangedBinding(string path)
: base(path)
{
UpdateSourceTrigger = UpdateSourceTrigger.PropertyChanged;
}
}
...and replace {Binding} with your custom binding across all your XAML files:
<TextBox Text="{local:PropertyChangedBinding x}" />

What is the proper way to bind to a value while showing a friendly name from a list of presets also defined on that item?

Got a tough one. Consider a ViewModel that is comprised of a list of objects, where each object defines an int value, and some of those objects also define a Presets dictionary of ints keyed on a 'friendly' string representing that value in the UI.
Here's an example...
List<SomeItem> AllItems;
public class SomeItem : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public SomeItem(int initialValue, Dictionary<int,string> presets)
{
this.CurrentValue = initialValue;
this.Presets = presets;
}
public int CurrentValue{ get; set; } // Shortened for readability. Assume this property supports INPC
public Dictionary<int,string> Presets{ get; private set; }
}
The goal for the UI is if the item has no presets, the user can enter any int value they want. However, if there are presets, we want to limit them to those values and also display them in the UI as the Friendly names from the dictionary.
Our first attempt was to use a TextBox and a ComboBox, modifying their visibilities depending on if there were presets or not, like this...
<ComboBox ItemsSource="{Binding Presets}"
DisplayMemberPath="Key"
SelectedValuePath="Value"
SelectedValue="{Binding CurrentValue, Mode=TwoWay}"
Visibility={Binding HasPresets, Converter=...}">
<TextBox Text="{Binding CurrentValue}"
Visibility={Binding HasPresets, Converter...}" /> // Assume the inverse of the combo
...but when we're using this in a DataTemplate of a list that supports virtualization, the combo occasionally displays blanks. I believe is because when the item is reused and the DataContext changes, SelectedValue updates before ItemsSource meaning there's potentially no preset value to match on, thus the proposed SelectedValue value gets tossed by the control, then ItemsSource updates, but there's no selected value so it shows a blank.
My next thought (and what we preferred anyway) was to use only a TextBox that displayed the preset name but was actually bound to Value, then use a converter to work its magic, and let the user type either the friendly name or the actual value. If the user typed something that wasn't a valid value or a preset, we'd just throw an error. If there were no presets, it would simply act as a pass-through of the value.
However, there I'm not sure how to pass in the presets to the converter. You can't set a binding on a ConverterParameter to pass them in that way, and if you use a multi-binding, then I'm not sure how to structure the 'ConvertBack' call since there too I need them passed in, not sent back out.
I'm thinking the proper way is to implement UiValue in the ViewModel which we'd simply bind to like this...
<TextBox Text="{Binding UiValue}" />
...then move the code that would've been in the converter to that property's getter/setter implementation, or simply be a pass-through to Value if there are no presets. However, this seems like too much logic is going in the ViewModel where it should be in the View (ala a converter or similar.) Then again, maybe that's exactly the point of the ViewModel. I dunno. Thoughts welcome.

Personally, I would go for putting the 'converter code' into the property as you suggested... I don't see any problem with having the code in there. In fact, it's probably better than having it in a Converter because then you can easily test it too.
Sorry, this isn't much of an answer, but I felt that your question deserved at least one.

I like your question, because it illustrates the way of thinking that stands behind the existence of a ViewModel in WPF. Sometimes they seem inevitable.
Converters are designed to be stateless, which is why it's difficult to pass context variables like presets. ViewModel is a layer, of which responsibility is to prepare Model for binding purposes. The role of a "model" is to handle logic. Thus, a ViewModel may handle in detail the behaviour (logic) of a View. This is precisely what you want. Most of the time I find myself not needing Converters at all.
Sometimes it feels more natural that the view logic should be in the View, but then ViewModel seems superfluous. However, when that logic is located in the ViewModel it's usually easier to auto-test. I wouldn't be afraid of putting stuff like this in ViewModel at all. Often this is the easiest (and correct) way.
Have UiValue property in ViewModel and handle conversion there:
public string UiValue{ get{/*...*/} set{/*...*/} }
To rephrase, in WPF there is no clean way to replace the property you bind to. E.g. if you wanted to have
<TextBox Text="{Binding IntValue}" />
change at some point to:
<TextBox Text="{Binding PresetValue}" />
you're trapped. This is not how things are done. Better have a constant binding like
<TextBox Text="{Binding UiValue}" />
and deal with the logic behind the UiValue property.
Another possible approach (instead of playing with visibility of ComboBox and TextBox) is to have a DataTemplateSelector, which would decide whether a ComboBox or TextBox should be created for SomeItem. If presets are null or empty select TextBox-based DataTemplate, otherwise take ComboBox. If I'm not mistaken you'd have to investigate FrameworkElement.DataContext property from within the selector to find the context (presets).
Considering your doubt about ConvertBack method, most commonly value or Binding.DoNothing is returned in case you don't need conversion in any of the directions.

Understanding DataBinding

I'm new to WPF and the whole data binding thing. I read a couple of posts and I'm quite confused about how to bind my data to a UI element.
I saw a post doing it this way:
<Window
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
Name="myWindow">
<Grid>
<TextBox Text="{Binding Path=Speed, ElementName=myWindow}" />
</Grid>
</Window>
This assumes Speed is a property / member defined in the code-behind file. A few other people named binding using a static resource and reference this one and others named DataContext to be used for binding. Now, because I'm new to WPF's data binding, I'm quite unsure if there exists any best practice method about which data binding to use.
Basically I was wondering why there has to be a several class-property defined as kind of connector to the underlying viewmodel, I though this stuff was more "dynamically".
I'm aiming at only having the XAML file, without the need to add anything into the *.xaml.cs code behind file. For example: I have a class named MainWindowViewModel (which will represent my ViewModel) having a member of the type ObservableCollection<string> and I want to bind a ListBox (in my View) to this collection. The only way I got this working so far was using the the first case, ElementName, where I have to add a property to the view-class as a kind of connector. Just like this:
MainWindow.xaml:
<Window x:Class="Sample.MainWindow"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
Name="MW" Title="MainWindow" Height="419" Width="463">
<Grid>
<ListBox ItemsSource="{Binding ElementName=MW, Path=ListerResultConnector}" />
</Grid>
</Window>
MainWindow.xaml.cs:
private ObservableCollection<string> mListerResultData = MainWindowViewModel.Instance.RetrievalStringResults;
public ObservableCollection<string> ListerResultConnector
{
get { return mListerResultData; }
}
My question is, if there exists a smarter way to bind data to my UI as using as further "connector" property in the code-behind file.

Your ViewModel should be set as the DataContext to the view. Then you don't need any "further connector" in codebehind. Binding actually refers to DataContext and if you don't set it, it remains as 'this', which corresponds to your codebehind file (which is just a partial to your view).
Also, take a look at: WPF Apps With The Model-View-ViewModel Design Pattern
You should get the WPF and it's binding basics first, but once you understand those, I suggest looking at Caliburn Micro and its convention-based bindings, event handling and other features which make your code much cleaner.

Your {Binding ElementName=MW means you are binding to the Window itself, so your DataContext is the Window, and any properties you implement need to be defined in that Window (in your code behind - your "connectors").
You need to remove the ElementName=MW bit and assign your ViewModel as the DataContext so you can bind to its properties directly. How you do this depends on whether you use "ViewModel First", or "View First"
In View first, you manually assign the DataContext to the View in code when you create the view.
In ViewModel first, you create a DataTemplate in XAML that ties your View to a particular ViewModel. I think ViewModel first is more common. The link that Darjan posted should help you understand the difference.

You should use a separate ViewModel class (WindowViewModel) which represents your data context for your Window (Window.DataContext).
I found that using the MVVM Light toolkit and following some of the videos on the site helped me fill in the gaps. Take time to learn it before getting started and it will start to sink in. IoC containers are also mixed in with MVVM + WPF for directory management & lifetime management of view models and improved design-time experience (blendability).
Toolkits aren't required and sometimes get in your way of learning the pattern. Once you understand it though, you should leverage a toolkit to speedup the development process. Here is a comparison of various MVVM toolkits.

A binding generally has two parts: a source object and a property name
When you specify ElementName in a binding, you are setting the Source object. Other ways to specify the binding's source object include the RelativeSource and Source properties. You can also leave the binding's source object undefined, in which case it will use whatever the DataContext is of the current object. The Source Object can be a UI Element found in WPF's VisualTree, or it can be a class object that is in the control's DataContext
When you specify Path, you are telling the binding what Property to use. You can also leave this property blank to bind to the current object's DataContext
The DataContext is the data object stored behind the control. This is typically a Model or a ViewModel (if using MVVM), although it can also be almost any object, such as a UI Element.
In your example
<Window
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
Name="myWindow">
<Grid>
<TextBox Text="{Binding Path=Speed, ElementName=myWindow}" />
</Grid>
</Window>
you are telling the binding that it's Source Object is the UI Element in the Visual Tree named myWindow, and the property is called Speed. Since your object named myWindow is of type Window, this binding will only work if your Window class actually has a property called Speed.
There are a lot of answers here suggesting you switch to using the MVVM design pattern, and I agree that you should try and use MVVM if you're working with WPF. It makes coding a lot simpler since you are separating your application logic from your UI. If you're interested, I have a simple MVVM example posted on my blog which explains the basics of that design pattern.

Yeah, Binding is nothing if not confusing.
This example from msdn may be helpful. Notice how a DataContext is declared at the Window "level" - it's a complex/compound object in this case and Window sub-elements' {Binding} declarations are therefore implicitly relative to the "Parent level" DataContext.
The main goodness we get is that when the DataContext is set to a given object all the "sub element" data bindings are automagically keep in synch. We can control this synchronization at any/many levels in the UI Control structure heirarchy by using this pattern.
Collection binding under the hood
The bottom line is your collection must implement IList as a minimum. Many .NET Collection classes are "binding ready."
Here's a quote from the msnd doc on ObservableCollection:
Before implementing your own collection, consider using ObservableCollection or one of the existing collection classes, such as List, Collection, and BindingList, among many others. If you have an advanced scenario and want to implement your own collection, consider using IList, which provides a non-generic collection of objects that can be individually accessed by index. Implementing IList provides the best performance with the data binding engine.
Finally, IBinding list vs IList is needed for 2-way binding.

The simplest way to do it would be:
<Window x:Class="WpfApplication4.MainWindow"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:ctrl="clr-namespace:WpfApplication4"
Title="MainWindow" Height="350" Width="525">
<Window.Resources>
<ctrl:MainWindowViewModel x:Key="mym" />
</Window.Resources>
<Grid DataContext="{Binding Source={StaticResource mym}}">
<ListBox ItemsSource="{Binding Path=MyListProp}" />
</Grid>
The example above does the following:
Creates a new object of the ViewModel as resource for you window
Assigns the view model as DataContext for the window (more precisley for the root grid)
Binds the List box to your ViewModel ObservableCollection property MyListProp.
Try to get familiar with the properties of the binding class to fully understand this example by using the msdn library.
Also WPF 4 Unleashed - Adam Nathan is a great resource for a wpf beginner. Chapter 13 - Data Binding should cover everything you might want to know about bindings.

WPF Databinding in XAML

I have little problem with databinding in my current project.
I have an ObservableCollection I want to bind to an ListBox.
public ObservableCollection<GeoDataContainer> geoList = new ObservableCollection<GeoDataContainer>();
...later...
geoListBox.ItemsSource = geoList;
This code works fine. The Listbox has a datatemplate and everything looks perfect.
But I don't want to use C# code for binding. I want to make the binding in the XAML Code.
I am searching for days but I don't get it. These are two lines C# code but to archive this in XAML it seems impossible without creating my own class for my collection or adding a DataProvider or resources or whatever.
Is there no easy way to do it?

All you have to do is expose the collection and bind to it. For example, if you expose it as:
public ICollection<GeoDataContainer> GeoList
{
get { return geoList; }
}
You will be able to bind to it as:
<ListBox ItemsSource="{Binding GeoList}"/>
The "trick" is to make sure that the DataContext of the ListBox is the class that exposes the GeoList property.

Another good way would be instantiating geoList as a resource
<WindowResources>
<l:GeoCollection x:Key="geoList"/>
</WindowResources>
Then you have
GeoCollection geoList = FindResource("geoList") as GeoCollection;
Of course, this is for cases when the data is related to the view only. If this is related to model or modelview, you use DataContext and bind to its properties.

Kent suggestion is the way to go...
On a further note, if you do not wish to set your DataContext to the list, you can also retrieve the property with an another form of binding:
Make sure your root control has a name, i.e. "Root"
{Binding ElementName=Root, Path=GeoList}