Develop Reference

Browsable(false) at run time?

I am using a datasource to populate my datagridview with the data. However, im trying to find a way for the user to be able to hide columns that he does not want to see.
I am able to hide and show columns before the program runs using:
[Browsable(false)]
public string URL
{
get
{
return this._URL;
}
set
{
this._URL = value;
this.RaisePropertyChnaged("URL");
}
}
I cannot seem to figure out how to change the [Browsable(false)] at run time.
Any ideas how I could accomplish this?
Basically, I want to bind an "on/off" to a menu.
Apologies if im not using the right terminology when explaining my problem, I am self taught and started a few weeks ago - so still very newbie :)
Edit:
Cant hide the column because when i run my update function all columns appear again. Here is my function for updating:
private void UpdateResults()
{
Invoke(new MethodInvoker(
delegate
{
this.dgvResults.SuspendLayout();
this.dgvResults.DataSource = null;
this.dgvResults.DataSource = this._mySource;
this.dgvResults.ResumeLayout();
this.dgvResults.Refresh();
}
));
}

At run time, you can just specify the column as being invisible:
dgv.Columns["ColumnName"].Visible = false;

The way to do this properly at runtime is to provide a custom ITypedList implementation on the collection, or provide a TypeDescriptionProvider for the type, or (for single-object bindings, not lists), to implement ICustomTypeDescriptor. Additionally, you would need to provide your own filtered PropertyDescriptor implementation. Is it really worth it? In most cases: no. It is much easier to configure the grid properly, showing (or not) the appropriate columns by simply choosing which to add.

Indeed, as others had mention the purpose of BrowsableAttribute is different, but I understand what you want to do:
Let's suppose that we want to create a UserControl than wraps a DataGridView and gives the user the ability to select which columns to display, allowing for complete runtime binding. A simple design would be like this (I'm using a ToolStrip, but you can always use a MenuStrip if that's what you want):
private void BindingSource_ListChanged(object sender, ListChangedEventArgs e) {
this.countLabel.Text = string.Format("Count={0}", this.bindingSource.Count);
this.columnsToolStripButton.DropDownItems.Clear();
this.columnsToolStripButton.DropDownItems.AddRange(
(from c in this.dataGrid.Columns.Cast<DataGridViewColumn>()
select new Func<ToolStripMenuItem, ToolStripMenuItem>(
i => {
i.CheckedChanged += (o1, e2) => this.dataGrid.Columns[i.Text].Visible = i.Checked;
return i;
})(
new ToolStripMenuItem {
Checked = true,
CheckOnClick = true,
Text = c.HeaderText
})).ToArray());
}
In this case, bindingSource is the intermediary DataSource of the dataGrid instance, and I'm responding to changes in bindingSource.ListChanged.

Why does MonoTouch.Dialog use public fields for some Element options, and public properties for others

I am trying to get a StringElement's 'Value' to update in the UI when I set it after already setting up the DVC.
e.g:
public partial class TestDialog : DialogViewController
{
public TestDialog() : base (UITableViewStyle.Grouped, null)
{
var stringElement = new StringElement("Hola");
stringElement.Value = "0 Taps";
int tapCount = 0;
stringElement.Tapped += () => stringElement.Value = ++tapCount + " Taps";
Root = new RootElement("TestDialog")
{
new Section("First Section")
{
stringElement,
},
};
}
}
However the StringElement.Value is just a public field, and is only written to the UICell during initialization when Element.GetCell is called.
Why isn't it a property, with logic in the setter to update the UICell (like the majority of Elements, e.g. EntryElement.Value):
public string Value
{
get { return val; }
set
{
val = value;
if (entry != null)
entry.Text = value;
}
}
EDIT :
I made my own version of StringElement, derived from Element (basically just copied the source code from here verbatim)
I then changed it to take a class scoped reference to the cell created in GetCell, rather than function scoped. Then changed the Value field to a property:
public string Value
{
get { return val; }
set
{
val = value;
if (cell != null)
{
// (The below is copied direct from GetCell)
// The check is needed because the cell might have been recycled.
if (cell.DetailTextLabel != null)
cell.DetailTextLabel.Text = Value == null ? "" : Value;
}
}
}
It works in initial testing. However I am not sure on whether taking a reference to the cell is allowed, none of the other elements seem to do it (they only take references to control's placed within the cells). Is it possible that multiple 'live'* cell's are created based on the one MonoTouch.Dialog.Element instance?
*I say live to indicate cells currently part of the active UI. I did notice when navigating back to the dialog from a child dialog the GetCell method is invoked again and a new cell created based on the Element, but this is still a 1-1 between the element and the live cell.

For the main question:
Why does MonoTouch.Dialog use public fields for some Element options, and public properties for others?
I've been through the code, and I don't think there's a consistent reason for use of either.
The Dialog project was not part of the MonoTouch project initially - I don't think Miguel knew how useful it was going to turn out when he started wrote and grew it - I think he was more focussed on writing other apps like TweetStation at the time.
I know of several people (including me!) who have branched the code and adapted it for their purposes. I would guess at some future point Xamarin might write a 2.0 version with stricter coding standards.
Taking references to live cells
For limited use you can do this... but in general don't.
The idea of the table view is that cells get reused when the user scrolls up and down - especially in order to save memory and ui resources. Because of this is a long list, multiple elements might get references to the same cell.
If you do want to cache a cell reference then you probably should override GetCell() so that it never tries to reuse existing cells (never calls DequeueReusableCell)
Alternatively, you could try to change some code in the base Element class in order to find out if the Element has a current attached cell - this is what CurrentAttachedCell does in my branch of Dialog https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/blob/master/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross.Dialog/Dialog/Elements/Element.cs (but that branch has other added functions and dependencies so you probably won't want to use it for this current work!)

Two-way bind a "virtual" list of strings to a column

I have a list of Strings.
Well, conceptually. They are stored somewhere else, but I want provide an object which acts like a list (and provides any necessary events on top of that), with properties that I could bind to.
I want to establish a two-way binding over this data, to display it as a modifiable column in a DataGrid. I have the following problems with that:
I can't make a two-way binding because the binding needs a path (i.e. I can't have it look like {Binding} or {Binding Path=.} in the column, must be {Binding Path=someField"} to be made modifiable if I got this right, which sounds reasonable).
I don't exactly know how the proxy collection object should look like, in terms of interfaces (would IEnumerable + INotifyCollectionChanged sufficient?)
Is there any solution which doesn't involve creating one proxy object per every String in the collection? Could you suggest an efficient design?
To keep the discussion on the rails, let's assume I want to bind to something like this:
class Source {
public String getRow(int n);
public void setRow(int n, String s);
public int getCount();
public void addRow(int position, String s);
public void removeRow(int position);
}
That's not exactly my case, but when I know how to bind to this, I think I'll be able to handle any situation like this.
I'm OK with having to provide an adapter object on top of that Source, with any necessary interfaces and events, but I don't want to have one adapter object per row of data.

While making an adapter for the Source is relatively clear, then, unfortunatelly, the core of the second problem ('not wrapping every string in a miniobject') is a clash built into the .Net and WPF..
The first thing is that the WPF does provide you with many ways of registering 'on data modified' callbacks, but provides no way of registering callbacks that would provide a value. I mean, the "set" phase is only extendable, not interceptable, and the "get" - nothing at all. WPF will simply keep and return whatever data it has once cached.
The second thing is that in .Net the string is ... immutable.
Now, if ever you provide a string directly as a pathless binding or as a datacontext to any control, you are screwed in a dead end. The problem is, that WPF actually passes only the actual value of the binding, without the information of "where it came from". The underlying control will be simply given the string instance, and will have no sane way of modifying it as the string cannot change itself. You will not be even notified about such attempt, just like with read-only properties. What's more - if you ever manage to intercept such a modification attempt, and if you produce a proper new string, the WPF will never ask you again for the new value. To update the UI, you'd have to mannually, literally, force the WPF to re-ask you by for example changing the original binding so it points elsewhere (to the new value) or set the datacontext (to the new instance). It is doable with some VisualTree scanning, as every 'changed' callback gives you the DependencyObjects (Controls!), so yo ucan scan upwards/downwards and tamper with their properties.. Remember that option - I'll refer to this in a minute.
So, everything boils down to the fact that to get a normal 2-way binding you do not have to have a Path, you "just" have to have a mutable underlying data object. If you have immutable one - then you have to use a binding to a mutable property that holds the immutable value..
Having said that, you simply have to wrap the strings some how if you want to modify them.
The other question is, how to do that. There's a plenty of ways to do it. Of course, you can simply wrap them like Joe and Davio suggested (note to Joe: INotify would be needed there also), or you can try to do some XAML tricks with attached properties and/or behaviours and/or converters to do that for you. This is completely doable, see for example my other post - I've shown there how to "inject a virtual property" that pulled the data completely from elsewhere (one binding+converter performed the wrapping on the fly, second binding extracted the values from the attached-wrapper). This way you could create a "Contents" property on the string, and that property could simply return the string itself, and it'd be completely 2-way bindable with no exceptions.
But.. it would NOT work 2-way-ish.
Somewhere at the root of your binding/behaviour/conveter chain, there will be an immutable string. Once your smart autowrapping binding chain fires with 'on modified' callback you will be notified with pair of old/new values. You will be able to remap the values to new and old strings. If you implemented everything perfectly, the WPF will simply use the new value. If you tripped somewhere, then you will have to push the new value artificially back to the UI (see the options I'd asked you to remember). So, it's ok. No wrapper, old value was visible, it was changeable, you've got new value, the UI displays new value. How about storage?
Somewhere in the meantime you've been given a old/new value pair. If you analyze them, you'll get old/new strings. But how do you update the old immutable string? Can't do. Even if autowrapping worked, even if UI worked, even if editing seemed to work, you are now standing with the real task: you onmodified callback was invoked and you have to actually update that immutable string piece.
First, you need your Source. Is it static? Phew. What a luck! So surely it is instanced. In the on-modified callback we got only a old+new string.. how to get the Source instance? Options:
scan the VisualTree and search for it in the datacontexts and use whatever was found..
add some more attached properties and binding to bind a virtual "Source" property to every string and read that property from the new value
Well doable, but smells, but no other options.
Wait, there's more: not only the old/new value and an instance of Source are needed! You also need the ROW INDEX. D'oh! how to get that from the bound data? Again, options:
scan the VisualTree and search for it (blaargh)...
add some more attached properties and bindings to bind a virtual "RowIndex" property to every (blaaergh)...
At this point of time, while I see that all of this seems implementable and actually might be working properly, I really think that wrapping each string in a small
public class LocalItem // + INotifyPropertyChanged
{
public int Index { get; }
public Source Source { get; }
public string Content
{
get { Source...}
set { Source... }
}
}
will simply be more readable, elegant and .. SHORTER to implement. And less error-prone, as more details will be explicit instead of some WPF's binding+attached magic..

I find your approach a little weird.
DataGrids are usually used to display Rows. Rows consist of data that belongs together.
You could for instance easily map a row to a certain class. This means that the columns in your datagrid represent properties in your class.
What you're trying to do is the opposite, you're trying to get a relation between the column values instead of the row values.
Wouldn't it be easier to have a collection of your class which you can then bound the column to?
For instance
class MyClass : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
// Remember to actually implement INotifyPropertyChanged
string Column;
}
If you would have an ObservableCollection of MyClass you could bind the DataGrid to this collection. Whenever the property which I called "Column" changes, you could update your special list.
You can do this by hooking up some events. With the implementation of INotifyPropertyChanged, your columns will be updated if you update the "Column"-value directly.

I have this bit of code I use to bind a list of custom object to a DataContextMenu. You can alter it to use a list of strings and bind it to what you need
class SampleCode
{
class Team
{
private string _TeamName = "";
private int _TeamProperty1 = 0;
ObservableCollection<Territory> _Territories = new ObservableCollection<Territory>();
public Team(string tName)
{
this.TeamName = tName;
}
public ObservableCollection<Territory> Territories
{
get { return _Territories; }
set { _Territories = value; }
}
public string TeamName
{
get { return _TeamName; }
set { _TeamName = value; }
}
public int TeamProperty1
{
get { return _TeamProperty1; }
set { _TeamProperty1 = value; }
}
}
class Territory
{
private string _TerritoryName = "";
Team _AssociatedTeam = null;
public Territory(string tName, Team team)
{
this.TerritoryName = tName;
this.AssociatedTeam = team;
}
public Team AssociatedTeam
{
get { return _AssociatedTeam; }
set { _AssociatedTeam = value; }
}
public string TerritoryName
{
get { return _TerritoryName; }
set { _TerritoryName = value; }
}
public void Method1()
{
//Do Some Work
}
}
class MyApplication
{
ObservableCollection<Team> _Teams = new ObservableCollection<Team>();
ContextMenu _TeritorySwitcher = new ContextMenu();
public MyApplication()
{
}
public void AddTeam()
{
_Teams.Add(new Team("1"));
_Teams.Add(new Team("2"));
_Teams.Add(new Team("3"));
_Teams.Add(new Team("4"));
foreach (Team t in _Teams)
{
t.Territories.Add(new Territory("1", t));
t.Territories.Add(new Territory("2", t));
t.Territories.Add(new Territory("3", t));
}
SetContextMenu();
}
private void SetContextMenu()
{
HierarchicalDataTemplate _hdtTerritories = new HierarchicalDataTemplate();
_hdtTerritories.DataType = typeof(Territory);
HierarchicalDataTemplate _hdtTeams = new HierarchicalDataTemplate();
_hdtTeams.DataType = typeof(Team);
FrameworkElementFactory _TeamFactory = new FrameworkElementFactory(typeof(TreeViewItem));
_TeamFactory.Name = "txtTeamInfo";
_TeamFactory.SetBinding(TreeViewItem.HeaderProperty, new Binding("TeamProperty1"));
FrameworkElementFactory _TerritoryFactory = new FrameworkElementFactory(typeof(TreeViewItem));
_TerritoryFactory.Name = "txtTerritoryInfo";
_TerritoryFactory.SetBinding(TreeViewItem.HeaderProperty, new Binding("TerritoryProperty1"));
_hdtTeams.ItemsSource = new Binding("Territories");
_hdtTeams.VisualTree = _TeamFactory;
_hdtTerritories.VisualTree = _TerritoryFactory;
_hdtTeams.ItemTemplate = _hdtTerritories;
_TeritorySwitcher.ItemTemplate = _hdtTeams;
_TeritorySwitcher.ItemsSource = this._Teams;
}
}
}

Lazy solution
Derive from ObservableCollection<string> and let that collection be populated from the Source. In the derived class, register to collection change events and update the source accordingly. Bind the DataGrid column to the observable collection.
This should be pretty straightforward to write, but has a big drawback of duplicating all data in the collection.
More efficient solution
Create an adapter (as you suggested) and implement IList<string> and INotifyCollectionChanged. Let the list operations fall through directly to the source. Bind the DataGrid column to the adapter.
This approach would require some tedious boilerplate, but it's a thin layer between the WPF control and your Source.

This really depends on how you're implementing the UI. Bea Stollnitz did an excellent post of virtualizing the ItemsSource for the WPF DataGrid at http://bea.stollnitz.com/blog/?p=344 . With work I used this to edit as well as display data.

The easiest way is by placing the string in a wrapper class.
public class Wrapper
{
public string Content{get;set;}
}
Then you use the string via the wrapper class. This was the list items remain the same but the content changes.
The problem is when you do this without that then an old string is being deleted and a new one is created and the collection is confused.

Start with an ObservableCollection<string>. Then set the bindable control's ItemsSource to the ObservableCollection.

Adding Items to ListView too slow in C#

I want to add item to listview control. This is a bit of code :
this.lView.ListViewItemSorter = null;
ListViewItem[] lvitems = new ListViewItem[ListMyObjects.Count];
int index = 0;
foreach (MyObject object in ListMyObjects)
{
ListViewItem item = new ListViewItem();
item.Text = object.Name;
lvitems[index++] = item;
}
this.lView.BeginUpdate();
this.lView.Items.AddRange(lvitems); // Slow in here with debugger
this.lView.EndUpdate();
I'm only add about 1000 item but it's very slowly. It's spend about 15secs to finish.
why does anyone know the reason ? Thank in advance.
Edit :
I have customized listview before.
public partial class MyListView: ListView
{
public MyListView()
{
InitializeComponent();
this.View = View.Details;
this.FullRowSelect = true;
this.DoubleBuffered = true;
}
private bool mCreating;
private bool mReadOnly;
protected override void OnHandleCreated(EventArgs e)
{
mCreating = true;
base.OnHandleCreated(e);
mCreating = false;
}
public bool ReadOnly
{
get { return mReadOnly; }
set { mReadOnly = value; }
}
protected override void OnItemCheck(ItemCheckEventArgs e)
{
if (!mCreating && mReadOnly) e.NewValue = e.CurrentValue;
base.OnItemCheck(e);
}
}
I do it because i don't want to hang when i use multiple threading. I don't know what does this influenced to it ?

You could make it much faster by enabling virtual mode.
However, that will take some work.

The preferred way of adding multiple items is to use the AddRange() method. However if you must add the items one by one you can use the BeginUpdate() and EndUpdate() methods around your loop. Following is from the MSDN
The preferred way to add multiple items to a ListView is to use the AddRange method of the ListView.ListViewItemCollection (accessed through the Items property of the ListView). This enables you to add an array of items to the list in a single operation. However, if you want to add items one at a time using the Add method of the ListView.ListViewItemCollection class, you can use the BeginUpdate method to prevent the control from repainting the ListView every time that an item is added.

Appologies for a more architectural solution, but if your domain objects are large this might cause the bottleneck (reading the comments it sounds like they may be slowing it down). Before you get to the presentation layer you could flatten them into some (very simple) domain transfer objects (DTOs): literally just a bag of getters-and-setters.
A tool like AutoMapper could potentially take a lot of the donkey work out there
That way your domain objects stay in the business logic domain (where they belong) and your presentation layer just gets the data in needs from the DTO.
Sorry for the non-code-based suggestion :) good luck!

Moving data between two user controls in WinForm Application

As a course project i'm building a form in c# which contains two user controls.
The first user control has a checkedlistbox and the second control has also a checkedlistbox when the first control checkedlistbox will contain list of people (male/female) and the second user control the checkedlistbox will have two options: male, female and when I click a button on the first control which says: "update friends" it's suppose to go to the second control and check if we selected male or female and according to that to update the checkedlistbox in the first user control with friends by gender type by what was selected on the second control.
Basically I want to raise an event every time the button on the first control selected then to get the data from the second control to the first control.
Is it possible to do so between two controls who are inside a form and are different controls?
Any help will be appriciated.
Thanks.

To do this "correctly," you would want to use something like the MVC architecture. It's definitely a lot more work initially to understand and implement but is very useful to know if you plan on doing any serious UI application development. Even if you don't go all the way with it, the concepts are useful to help design even "quick and dirty" applications.
Define your data model without thinking in terms of the UI, e.g.:
internal enum Gender
{
Male,
Female
}
internal class Person
{
public Gender Gender { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
// . . .
// Populate the list of people
List<Person> allPeople = new List<Person>();
allPeople.Add(new Person() { Gender = Gender.Male, Name = "Xxx Yyy" });
allPeople.Add(new Person() { Gender = Gender.Female, Name = "Www Zzz" });
// . . .
For the view portion, you would typically use data binding on the UI controls so that the controls will automically reflect changes to the underlying data. However, this can get difficult especially if you are not using a database-like model (e.g. System.Data.DataSet). You may opt to "manually" update the data in the controls which might be fine in a small app.
The controller is the portion that uses the UI events and makes changes to the model, which may then be reflected as changes in the view.
internal class Controller
{
private Gender selectedGender;
private List<Person> allPeople;
private List<Person> friends;
public Controller(IEnumerable<Person> allPeople)
{
this.allPeople = new List<Person>(allPeople);
this.friends = new List<Person>();
}
public void BindData(/* control here */)
{
// Code would go here to set up the data binding between
// the friends list and the list box control
}
// Event subscriber for CheckedListBox.SelectedIndexChanged
public void OnGenderSelected(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
CheckedListBox listBox = (CheckedListBox)sender;
this.selectedGender = /* get selected gender from list box here */;
}
// Event subscriber for Button.Click
public void OnUpdateFriends(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.friends.AddRange(
from p in this.allPeople
where p.Gender == this.selectedGender
select p);
// If you use data binding, you would need to ensure a
// data update event is raised to inform the control
// that it needs to update its view.
}
}
// . . .
// On initialization, you'll need to set up the event handlers, etc.
updateFriendsButton.Click += controller.OnUpdateFriends;
genderCheckedListBox.SelectedIndexChanged += controller.OnGenderSelected;
controller.BindData(friendsListBox);
// . . .
Basically, I recommend not having controls talk directly, but rather through a controller-like class as above which has knowledge of the data model and the other controls in the view.

Of course it's possible: you need to make the link between the 2 controls in the form.
Just declare an event 'ButtonClicked' in control #1
Then make a public method 'PerformsClick' on the control #2
And in the form, in the constructor, after the call to InitializeComponent, link the event from the control #1 to the method to the control #2:
control1.ButtonClicked += delegate(sender, e) {
control2.PerformsClick();
};
(I type on the fly to give you an idea, it'll surely not compile)
If you want to pass any data, just add parameters in the PerformsClick method.