Develop Reference

How to plug in an arbitrary view dynamically into xaml in MVVM application?

There are multiple places in my application whehe I have ContentControl placed in xaml and I do not know beforehand what its Content is going to be. What is the best practice to implement this scenario?
Right now I am considering two approaches:
Bind ContentControl.Content to view model and use a dictionary of DataTemplates to find an appropriate view. My issue with this approach is that even if I were to list all the possible combinations in a dicitonary, in some cases I simply do not know an exact type of view (or viewmodel if there is any) at compilation time. I think, I am also going to have troubles using this approach for hosting non-WPF content.
Create some sort of an interface:
interface IContentPlugin : IDisposable
{
object View { get; }
}
and bind ContentControl.Content to IContentPlugin.View directly. I could then have multiple implementations of this interface and swap them when I need to. But this solution does not strike me as something that goes well with MVVM application, as it forces me to have references to IContentPlugins in my view models.
What do you think is the best option and why? Perhaps there is a better approach?

this is a very interesting scenario and for these cases I usually introduce a ViewResolverService or a ViewModelResolverService (or both). So something that can either give you the ViewModel based on a view (class,type or name) match them to host them in the ContentControl. Or a Service which can give you a view based on the ViewModel (type, or string name). With this powerful concept you can use ContentControls and/or DataTemplates and you have full control.
I answered some questions explaining the concepts here:
Register all viewmodel and services in ViewModelLocator
and here:
Get the View & ViewModel from a plugin
more here: https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=ViewModelResolver
So if you look at it from the birds eye view you need to apply MVVM to your ContentControls with your views. (And the views have also MVVM applied within themselves).
HTH

You should use implicit View determination via DataTemplates.
This is achieved by having type-specific DataTemplates (i.e. DataTemplates without a key reference) for your ViewModel types in a ResourceDictionary local to the scope of the ContentControl.
Be aware though that you will need to scope the ResourceDictionary quite carefully in the case where a single ViewModel can have multiple Views associated with it.
Update:
The reasons to use implicit View determination are:
In general, the View resolution look-ups are faster than if you were to write a View resolving service.
You're not duplicating effort by writing your own View resolver which you then need to plug into the WPF runtime.
You should be telling the external source what you support and in this case, keep it always to WPF ResourceDictionary so that regardless of the content/resources, you are able to merge it into your runtime ResourceDictionaries - this means, your external sources will need to provide the WinForms control wrappers for you.
As someone who has created a plugin framework before using this pattern, working with a conceptually "pure MVVM" implementation simplifies things considerably - external sources supply a ViewModel class and a ResourceDictionary of the resources for the VM and you let WPF do the heavy-lifting of View determination for you.

Use DataTemplate for ContentControls:
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type vm:DataSourceViewModel}">
<view:DataSourceView></view:DataSourceView>
</DataTemplate>
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type vm:SelectTemplateViewModel}">
<view:SelectTemplateView></view:SelectTemplateView>
</DataTemplate>
.........
........
<ContentControl Margin="5" HorizontalAlignment="Stretch" Content="{Binding CurrentPage}" Name="ImportControls"></ContentControl>
VM:is the object type that is content of your contentcontrol
View: is specific view you want to see if object of a specific type is set as content of ContentControl

Eventually, I went with second approach. I was able to solve my main problem, which was:
But this solution does not strike me as something that goes well with MVVM application, as it forces me to have references to IContentPlugins in my view models.
Passing those "plugins" into viewmodels was a mistake, you should not do it. What you can and should do is find a way to partition your view into smaller independent segments, and set their content in non-MVVM way. So basically I ended up with a view, which acted as container and looked like this:
<UserControl x:Name=this>
<Grid>
<Grid.RowDefinitions>
<RowDefiniton>
<RowDefiniton>
<RowDefiniton>
</Grid.RowDefinition>
<ContentControl Grid.Row="0" Content="{Binding PluginA.View, ElementName=this}"/>
<ContentControl Grid.Row="1" Content="{Binding PluginB.View, ElementName=this}"/>
<ContentControl Grid.Row="2" Content="{Binding PluginC.View, ElementName=this}"/>
</Grid>
</UserControl>
where PluginA, PluginB and PluginC are dependency properties in code-behind, that are set by DI container using property injection. I am happy with the end-result, and it gives me the flexibility I need.
You can also use PRISM, which roughly speaking does the same thing, but in more general and flexible manner. It was somewhat too complex for my application though, so I decided to keep it simple. But you should give it a try, if you are trying to solve similar issue.

How do I specify DataContext (ViewModel) type to get design-time binding checking in XAML editor without creating a ViewModel object? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
What do I need to further qualify the DataContext for a binding?
(2 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I can specify DataContext like this:
<Window ... >
<Window.DataContext>
<MainViewModel />
</Window.DataContext>
...
</Window>
And in this case WPF will create an object of type MainViewModel and assign it to the window's DataContext property (this happens inside Window's InitializeComponent() method).
But what if my ViewModel doesn't have a default constructor. Or what if I want to initialize ViewModel and assign it to DataContext after Window.InitializeComponent() is executed (inside Window's constructor or from the same code which instantiates the window) - in this case WPF creates a ViewModel (inside InitializeComponent()), assigns it to window's DataContext and then I overwrite it with another instance of ViewModel (I'm worried about unnecessary object instantiation here).
I would like to be able to specify just a type of ViewModel, so I would get design-time warning if I misspell a property name inside {Binding} (or after renaming the property), or I could Go To Declaration by clicking (in XAML) on a property name inside {Binding PropertyName}.

That's the tricky part if you do the do-it-yourself MVVM.
Your options, basically:
Use Dependency Injection
You could inject the ViewModel in your Page/Window's constructor and assign it within it.
This has a few downsides though.
harder to use design-time view models
Views can't be instantiated from XAML anymore
ViewModel First with Navigation Service
You'd resolve your ViewModels and do all your navigation via a navigation service. In your ViewModels you pass the an INavigationService. You could navigate to a view by using ViewModel type. Inside it instantiate the ViewModel via Dependency Injection, then instantiate the View (based on naming conventions or via DI configuration)
That's a bit better, but still won't allow you to instantiate the Views within XAML. Big plus is, it allows you easily to pass parameters to the ViewModel (having the ViewModels implement INavigationAware property with NavigatedTo method, which is called after instantiation and passing the parameter to)
ViewModelLocator / Attached Property/Behavior
With this one, you would create an attached property, which you either set to true (i.e. autowire) or to a ViewModel type (to have more control over the ViewModel instantiated) and the find and resolve the ViewModel and assign it.
It basically gives all of the advantages above plus instantiation form View.
Last one is basically what Microsoft's MVVM framework "Prism" does (navigation service navigationService.Navigate("MyPage", myParameterForViewModel), DataContext instantiation and assignment from XAML via autowireing (In XAML: prism:ViewModelLocator.AutoWireViewModel="True").
That being said, it's best to use an matured MVVM Framework which does this parts of your wiring (even if you decide not to use the base classes such as BindableBase or whatever it's called in said framework).
As for design-time ViewModel/auto-completition for ViewModels:
You can use Blend's Design-Time attributes to do this. You need to add the Blend assembly references first. Then you can add xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008" namespace into your page/view.
Then you can bind it into your page via d:DataContext="{d:DesignInstance my:DesignTimeViewModel, IsDesignTimeCreatable=True}. Notice the d: before the DataContext, this is important. This DataContext will only be used in the Designer (Visual Studio XAML Designer or in Blend). This is to prevent interfering with the normal DataContext (without the prefix).
Example:
<Window x:Class="WpfApplication1.Window2"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008"
xmlns:myApp="clr-namespace:WpfApplication1"
xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006"
mc:Ignorable="d"
d:DataContext="{d:DesignInstance myApp:Window2ViewModel, IsDesignTimeCreatable=True}">
<Grid>
<TextBlock Text ="{Binding Test}"/>
</Grid>
</Window>
If you use Interfaces for your ViewModels, it's pretty fast to create the Design Instance, by simply having Visual Studio implement all the Interface property and give it some default values (for property so you have example data in your ViewModel to verify bindings work correctly).
This requires you to create separate design-time ViewModels and your actual ViewModels, which isn't as bad as it sounds. This gives your UI designer the chance to work with it, even if the real ViewModel isn't finished/implemented yet.

ViewModels that talk to each other without a Framework

Introduction
I have an application that imports lab instrument data while it is running. This data is imported and then displayed in a ListView at an interval set by the end-user as per his or her testing requirements. When a value of interest appears in this ListView that they watch, they then press a Start button and the application begins performing calculations on that datum and subsequent data until a Stop button is pressed. So on the left side of the screen is a View for displaying the imported data and on the right side is another View for watching the values and statistics as they are calculated and displayed.
The Current Code
The View that displays the ListView where data is imported to is the ImportProcessView.xaml and it sets its DataContext to the ImportProcessViewModel.cs. The VM I've just introduced has a property ObservableCollection<IrData> that the ListView, I've also just described, binds to. Now to the interesting part...
The ImportProcessView has a ContentControl that sets it's content dynamically a UserControl representing the controls and fields specific to the type of Phase that is chosen by the end-user.
<StackPanel Background="White" Margin="5">
<ContentControl Content="{Binding CurrentPhaseView}"/>
</StackPanel>
There are three PhaseViews, each in its own User Control and each sets it's DataContext to the ImportProcessViewModel. As a result I am getting some severe VM bloat to the tune of 2000 lines. Ridiculous. I know. The reason for the bloat is because the ImporProcessViewModel is maintaining state through properties for each of the three PhaseViews and not only that but contains methods for performing calculations whose data is stored and displayed in these "PhaseViews".
What I am trying to achieve
Obviously before the ImportProcessViewModel becomes more unwieldy, I need to break it up so that each PhaseView has its own ViewModel, but also such that each ViewModel maintains a relationship back to the ImportProcessViewModel for sake of the dependency imposed by the ObservableCollection of IrData.
R&D
I've done my research on ViewModels communicating with each other, but most of the results involve applications that were written with a specific MVVM framework. I am not using a framework, and at this point in the project it would be too late to refactor it to start using one.
I did, however, find this article and the answer offered by 'hbarck' suggests something simple like composition to achieve the result I want, but since I don't have much experience with DataTemplates I don't understand what is meant when he/she suggests exposing "the UserControl's ViewModel as a property on the main ViewModel, and bind a ContentControl to this property, which would then instantiate the View (i.e. the UserControl) through a DataTemplate"
Specifically, I don't understand what is meant by "bind a ContentControl to this property which would then instantiate the View through a DataTemplate".
Can someone clarify by way of an code example what is meant by instantiating a view through a DataTemplate in the context of this example?
Additionally, is this a good approach (as suggested by 'hbarck')?
As one can see, I am already setting the Content property of a ContentControl to the Phase View that is to be instantiated. I just don't know know what involving a DataTemplate would look like.

I don't understand what is meant when he/she suggests exposing "the
UserControl's ViewModel as a property on the main ViewModel, and bind
a ContentControl to this property, which would then instantiate the
View (i.e. the UserControl) through a DataTemplate"
A DataTemplate allows you to specify a relationship between a view (such as a user control) and a view model.
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type myApp:MyViewModel}">
<myApp:MyUserControl />
</DataTemplate>
This tells a ContentPresenter to display MyUserControl whenever its content property is set to an instance of MyViewModel. The view model will be used as the user controls DataContext. Typically, the DataTemplate is added to your application resources.
What the author of that answer is saying is that you could have a viewModel that has a property of another viewModel type which is bound to the Content property of the ContentPresenter.
<ContentPresenter Content="{Binding ParentViewModel.ChildViewModelProperty}"/>
Providing you have a DataTemplate that specifies a relationship between your ChildViewModel and your user control, WPF will automatically load the user control into your view.
This answer I provided to another question might also provide you with some help.
I need to break it up so that each PhaseView has its own ViewModel,
but also such that each ViewModel maintains a relationship back to the
ImportProcessViewModel.
This will allow you to break your viewModels into smaller, more manageable viewModels that look after themselves. This will leave you with the problem of communicating between the viewModels.
If you nest your viewModels as suggested, then your child viewModels could expose events that the parent viewModel can bind to so it is notified when something changes. Something like this:
public class ParentViewModel // Derive from some viewModel base that implements INPC
{
public ParentViewModel()
{
childViewModel = new ChildViewModel();
childViewModel.SomeEvent += someEventHandler;
// Don't forget to un-subscribe from the event at some point...
}
private void SomeEventHandler(object sender, MyArgs args)
{
// Update your calculations from here...
}
}
This is simple and doesn't require any additional frameworks. Some might argue against this method but it is a valid solution that works. The downside is that the viewModels have to know about each others existence in order to subscribe to the events so can end up being tightly-coupled. You can use standard object-oriented design principles to get around this though (I.E. derive your child viewModel from an interface so that the parent only knows about the interface and not the implementation).
If you really want to go for loosely-coupled communication then you need to use some sort of event aggregation or message bus system. This is similar to the above method except there is an object that sits between the view models and acts as a mediator so that the viewModels do not have to know of each others existence. My answer here provides some more information.
There are pre-existing solutions available but this would involve taking on an additional framework. I would advise using Josh Smiths MVVM foundation as it is very simple and you would only need to use a single class anyway.

While Benjamin's answer is really elaborate and very helpful, I'd like to clarify how what I wrote in the other post would apply to your problem:
You'd have three different PhaseViewModel-Classes for your different phases, probably derived from one common base class, let's say PhaseVMBase.
Instead of a CurrentPhaseView property, you'd probably have a CurrentPhaseVM property. This would be of type Object or PhaseVMBase, and return one of the three PhaseViewModel classes, depending on what the user chose in the main ViewModel.
PhaseVMBase would have an UpdateData method, which would be called by the main ViewModel whenever it received new data that should be processed by the phase view. The main ViewModel would call this method on whatever happened to be the CurrentPhaseVM at the moment. The PhaseViewModels would implement INotifyPropertyChanged, so that changes as a result of UpdateData would be visible to bound controls.
Your DataTemplates would be declared in the resources of the main view, e.g. the main window,
like this:
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type my:Phase1VM}">
<my:Phase1View/>
</DataTemplate>
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type my:Phase2VM}">
<my:Phase2View/>
</DataTemplate>
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type my:Phase3VM}">
<my:Phase3View/>
</DataTemplate>
Notice that there is no x:Key, only the DataType value. If declared like this, WPF would choose the appropriate DataTemplate when asked to display an object of type Phase1VM, Phase2VM or Phase3VM, respectively. Phase1View, Phase2View and Phase3View would be UserControls which would know how to display the different ViewModels. They wouldn't instantiate their ViewModels themselves, but expect that their DataContext is set to an instance of their respective ViewModel from outside.
Under the assumption that the ContentControl which should show the phase view is declared in the main view, and that the DataContext there would be the main ViewModel, you'd declare the ContentControl like this:
<ContentControl Content="{Binding CurrentPhaseVM}"/>
Depending on the actual type of CurrentPhaseVM, this will choose one of the three DataTemplates, and display the appropriate UserControl. The UserControl's DataContext would automatically be the ContentControl's Content, since that would the object which caused the DataTemplate to be chosen.
EDIT: Lists and code formatting don't go together, it seems...

Design pattern in WPF

I am making my first WPF application, so this question may seem rather odd. I have been reading about MVVM and so far it has made sense to me. What I don't understand, though, is separating all the XAML.
What I mean is this: I assume you don't place everything in the MainWindow.xaml and just collapse controls based upon what is going to be used. I would think you would want a container that would contain xaml of other files. Is this correct?
How do you go about separating the XAML out so that it isn't just a mash of everything in one file?

How do you go about separating the XAML out so that it isn't just a mash of everything in one file?
There are many ways, including creating a seperate UserControl, CustomControl, Page or Window
For example, if you wanted to pull some XAML out of your MainWindow.xaml, you could create a UserControl (right-click project, Add, New Item..., User Control (WPF)) called MyUserControl.xaml like this:
<UserControl x:Class="WpfApplication1.MyUserControl"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation">
<Grid>
<TextBlock>This is from a different XAML file.</TextBlock>
</Grid>
</UserControl>
and then use this control in your MainWindow.xaml like this:
<Window x:Class="WpfApplication1.MainWindow"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:myControls="clr-namespace:WpfApplication1">
<Grid>
<myControls:MyUserControl/>
</Grid>
</Window>
Note that you need to add a reference to the namespace of your UserControl
xmlns:myControls="clr-namespace:WpfApplication1"

I agree with Kevin's answer about UserControl and Window, so I'll just address the follow up question:
So I should switch between various controls that are collapsed/visible in the content of my MainWindow when the user is interacting with my application?
That is a valid option. It might get messy if you are working with a large application.
The other options that I've used are
switching Views in the code behind; i.e. on the click events you can add and remove elements from the page as you would have done in WinForms. This is not pure MVVM and some people will jump down your throat, but I believe MVVM is a tool, not a religion.
provide Views as properties in your ViewModel, and bind to them from your parent View. I don't know if this is pure MVVM, it's nice when you need to dynamically create Views depending on complex conditions but it can get complicated
use DataTemplates, which are essentially rules to determine the View to use based on the type of data that is provided. So if the data is an Address (or AddressViewModel), use the AddressView. If the data is a CustomerViewModel, use the CustomerView. And so on.
DataTemplates are the preferred pattern in my opinion - clean, easy to maintain, and a nice standard. It's trivial to go to the DataTemplate to see how the binding works, whereas the other two options I've given may lead to spaghetti code in the wrong hands.
MSDN has a nice page on DataTemplates in WPF.

When using Caliburn framework you could compose your application using smaller Views and ViewModels and have a shell which binds all those smaller views together. The shell would display one or many views at the same time, depending on how you want your application to behave. The good thing about this - unlike the pattern mentioned above where you hardcode the name of the View/UserControl in other places - is that you just create a ContentControl and bind it to the correct ViewModel property and Caliburn will find the correct View for you by convention.
Let's say you have a ShellViewModel and a ShellView which is just an empty window, and another View/ViewModel where you want to display in your shell at one point. You no longer need to instantiate your views anywhere and just work your way using POCO ViewModels objects:
public class ShellViewModel : Screen
{
public ChildViewModel Child { get; set; }
public void SomeAction()
{
Child = new ChildViewModel(); //Or inject using factory, IoC, etc.
}
}
public class ShellView : Window
{
}
<Window x:Class="WpfApplication1.ShellView"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:cal="http://www.caliburnproject.org">
<Grid>
<ContentControl cal:View.Model="{Binding Child}" />
</Grid>
</Window>

Question about ViewModel Management (DesignTime Vs Run Time)

I have a fairly basic WPF UI whereby user requests cause a new tab to open in my TabControl. The TabControl is bound to an ObservableCollection<ViewModelBase>
I add ViewModel instances to this collection, and the corresponding tab's content is displayed based on templates like this:
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type viewModels:UserUploadsViewModel}">
<userControls:UserUploads />
</DataTemplate>
Now let's say that inside of the UserUploads control I'd like to wire up a ViewModel in XAML to help with the designing, like this:
<UserControl x:Class=".....UserUploads"
.....
DataContext="{Binding Source={StaticResource ViewModelLocater},
Path=UserAdministrationViewModel}">
This property will return a ViewModel with live services at runtime, and a ViewModel with mock data at design time.
Question: Will this XAML interfere with what I'm doing in binding a TabItems content to a ViewModel instance, and relying on the dataTemplate above to render the right View? If so, is there a way to get both of these concepts to work together?

There is an easier way to do this. Have a DesignTimeUserAdministrationViewModel and populate it with static data in the constructor and refer that in UserControl as:
<UserControl d:DataContext="{d:DesignInstance designTimeVMs:DesignTimeUserAdministrationViewModel, IsDesignTimeCreatable=True}">
This way you have a design time test data bound to d:DataContext and runtime live data bound to the actual DataContext. More details here.

Yes I think it will interfere with your current setup
The ViewModelLocator is a static class that returns a dummy object at design time, and a static ViewModel at runtime. This means that
The ViewModelLocator, not your ParentViewModel, contains your TabViewModels
You cannot have multiple instances of the same Tab (ViewModel) open at once
You cannot manage Open/Closed tabs unless you reference the UserControl, which is a violation of the MVVM principle where the ViewModel doesn't know of the View
You can't instantiate new copies of the TabViewModel with parameterized constructors. For example, OpenTabs.Add(new CustomerViewModel(CustomerId));
Perhaps an alternative could be a Converter? One that returns a static object if in design time, or the bound object during runtime? I've never tested such a thing but in theory it should work :)

The built in MS stuff is not bad, but another more elegant and structurally sound alternative which I am busy incorporating in my project is:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dn169081.aspx
Basically, you use the MVVM Light toolkit with the SimpleIoc container it comes with and end up with the ability to serve up data for the following three scenarios:
Design time, Run time, and Test time.
Better still, the whole point of MVVM Light is to have your stuff be directly editable in Blend and there is a whole series of videos and blogs and sample apps describing it all. I wish I had found these earlier in my WPF explorations.