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.

To use (DataContext) or not to use

I've got a dilemma regarding the DataContext. Let's inspect the following piece of XAML:
<Window xmlns:my="clr-namespace:MyNamespace.Controls"
... >
...
<my:MyControl Name="{Binding Prop1}" Value="{Binding Prop2}" />
</Window>
Obviously, the Window's code-behind contains something like:
DataContext = someViewModel;
Author's intentions are clear - he wants to bind MyControl's Name and Value to Window's DataContext's Prop1 and Prop2. And this will of course work. Unless. (dramatic pause)
Unless MyControl is a composite UserControl, which also wants to take advantage of short notation of bindings and sets its DataContext to its own viewmodel. Because then it will become clear, that the bindings in Window's XAML actually bind to MyControl's DataContext (previously inherited from Window's one) and now they will stop working (or worse, will keep working if MyControl's viewmodel actually contains properties named Prop1 and Prop21).
In this particular case solution is to bind in Window's code explicitly:
<Window x:Name="rootControl"
xmlns:my="clr-namespace:MyNamespace.Controls"
... >
...
<my:MyControl Name="{Binding ElementName=rootControl, Path=DataContext.Prop1}"
Value="{Binding ElementName=rootControl, Path=DataContext.Prop2}" />
</Window>
TL;DR If we're using short notation of bindings (when binding to DataContext) we may encounter quite tough to nail bugs resulting from bindings suddenly pointing to wrong DataContext.
My question is: how to use short binding notation without risk, that I'll bind to wrong DataContext? Of course I may use the short notation when I'm sure, that I'll be using inherited DataContext and long notation when I'm sure, that control will modify its DataContext. But that "I'm sure" will work only until first mistake, which will consume another hour of debugging.
Maybe I'm not following some MVVM rule? E.g. for example DataContext should be set only once on the top level and all composited controls should bind to something else?
1 I've gone through that, actually. The Window's DataContext contained a property named (say) Prop and the control replaced its DataContext with a class, which also contained a property Prop and everything worked fine. Problem appeared when I tried to use (unconsciously) the same pattern with non-matching property names.
By request:
Fragment of MyControl's code:
public string Name
{
get { return (string)GetValue(NameProperty); }
set { SetValue(NameProperty, value); }
}
// Using a DependencyProperty as the backing store for Name. This enables animation, styling, binding, etc...
public static readonly DependencyProperty NameProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register("Name", typeof(string), typeof(MyControl), new PropertyMetadata(null));
public int Value
{
get { return (int)GetValue(ValueProperty); }
set { SetValue(ValueProperty, value); }
}
// Using a DependencyProperty as the backing store for MyProperty. This enables animation, styling, binding, etc...
public static readonly DependencyProperty ValueProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register("Value", typeof(int), typeof(MyControl), new PropertyMetadata(0));
Window's viewmodel:
public class WindowViewmodel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
// (...)
public string Prop1
{
get
{
return prop1;
}
set
{
prop1 = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Prop1");
}
}
public int Prop2
{
get
{
return prop2;
}
set
{
prop2 = value;
OnPropertyChanged("Prop2");
}
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
}
Now assume, that on changing of Name and Value dependency properties, MyControl generates some viewmodel and executes the code:
model = new MyControlViewModel(Name, Value);
this.DataContext = model;
And internal MyControl controls bind to this DataContext.
From now on, the original Name and Value bindings will no longer work.

Unless MyControl is a composite UserControl, which also wants to take advantage of short notation of bindings and sets its DataContext to its own viewmodel.
And that's where I stopped reading. This is, imho, a MVVM anti-pattern.
The reason for this is twofold. First, you screw with anybody who is using the control. "Hey," you say, "you can't bind your stinky VM to my beautiful UI. You have to use MY custom VM!" But what if your VM is hard to use, lacks logic or features needed by the overall application? What happens when, to use your UI, we have to translate our VM/models back and forth with your VM? Pain in the butt.
Second is that your custom control is UI. Its logic is UI logic, and so it is unnecessary to use a view model. It is better to expose DependencyProperties on your control and update your UI as necessary. That way anybody can bind to your UI and use it with any model or view model.

You can solve your problems by simply not using what you call a 'composite control. While I understand that you want to encapsulate some functionality in the associated view model, you don't need to set the view model to the UserControl.DataContext internally.
What I mean by this is that you can have a view model for any or all of your UserControls, but they're data classes, not UI classes, so keep them out of the view code. If you use this method of adding DataTemplates into Resources, then you won't need to set any DataContext properties at all:
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type ViewModels:YourUserControlViewModel}">
<Views:YourUserControl />
</DataTemplate>
The final difference is that you should add your view model for your UserControls as properties in a parent view model. This way, you still have no duplicated code (except maybe just a property declaration) and more importantly, you have no Binding problems from mixing DataContext values.
UPDATE >>>
When using this DataTemplate method of hooking up views and view models, you can display your view by Binding your view model property to the Content property of a ContentControl like this:
<ContentControl Content="{Binding YourViewModelProperty}" />
At run time, this ContentControl will be rendered as whatever view or UserControl that you defined in the DataTemplate of the relevant type for that property. Note that you shouldn't set the x:Key of the DataTemplate, otherwise you'd also need to set the ContentControl.ContentTemplate property and that can limit the possibilities afforded by this method.
For example, without setting the x:Key property on your DataTemplates, you could have a property of a base type and by setting it to different sub class, you can have different views for each from the one ContentControl. That is the basis of all of my views... I have one property of a base class view model data bound like this example and to change views, I just change the property to a new view model that is derived from the base class.
UPDATE 2 >>>
Here's the thing... you shouldn't have any 'proxy' object in your UserControls doing anything... it should all be done through properties. So just declare a DependencyProperty of the type of that object and supply it from the view model through data Binding. Doing it this way means that it will be easy to test the functionality of that class, whereas testing code behind views is not.
And finally, yes, it's perfectly fine doing this in MVVM:
<Controls:SomeUserControl DataContext="{Binding SomeViewModelProperty}" />
The overriding goal of MVVM is just to provide separation between the UI code and the view model code, so that we can easily test what's in the view models. That is why we try to remove as much functionality code from the views as possible.

within a usercontrol you should never set the datacontext to "this" or a new viewmodel. a developer/user of your MyUsercontrol expect that the datacontext inherit from top to bottom (from mainwindow to your myusercontrol).
your usercontrol xaml should use element binding
MyUserControl.xaml
<UserControl x:Name="uc">
<TextBlock Text="{Binding ElementName=uc, Path=Name}"/>
<TextBlock Text="{Binding ElementName=uc, Path=Value}"/>
this means your following code will work now in every situation
<Window xmlns:my="clr-namespace:MyNamespace.Controls">
<my:MyControl Name="{Binding Prop1}" Value="{Binding Prop2}" />
</Window>
the property Prop1 from Datacontext mainwindow is bound to the DP Name from your MyUsercontrol and the Textblock.Text within your MyUsercontrol is bound to the DP Name.

I've never met such a problem. It seems to be a little bit theoretical to me but maybe because of my approach to working with DataContext in WPF.
I minimize the explicit use DataContext property. I set it manually only for windows.
I have one dedicated method which is responsible for displaying new windows and it is the only one place where the DataContext property is set explicitly.
DataContext property for Windows is set to root ViewModel which contains child ViewModels, which contain...
I allow WPF to select which View should be used to display given a ViewModel by using DataTemplate
In my application I have a single ResourceDictionary which contains mappings between all ViewModels and Views.

WPF: MVVM Create custom dependency property for devExpress Controls

I know you can create custom controls and dependency property for wpf controls like expained here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms753358.aspx, I want to know if you can create custom dependency property in the same way for devExpress Controls ? and how ?
There is no way to bind multiple items in comboxBoxEdit control. I want to create a dependency property called SelectedItems on ComboBoxEdit.
I already created a custom property on normal ComboBox called SelectedEnumeration which binds directy to the enums and gets the value. No need to use ObjectDataProvider.

There is no way to bind multiple items in comboxBoxEdit control.
Wrong. Check DevExpress.Xpf.Editors.CheckedComboBoxStyleSettings
Basically, you can bind ComboBoxEdit.EditValue to a collection, which gets populated with the selected items.
<dxe:ComboBoxEdit ItemsSource="{Binding MyItems}"
EditValue="{Binding SelectedItems}">
<dxe:ComboBoxEdit.StyleSettings>
<dxe:CheckedComboBoxStyleSettings />
</dxe:ComboBoxEdit.StyleSettings>
</dxe:ComboBoxEdit>
ViewModel:
public class SomeViewModel
{
public ObservableCollection<MyClass> MyItems {get;set;}
public ObservableCollection<MyClass> SelectedItems {get;set;}
}
I already created a custom property on normal ComboBox called
SelectedEnumeration which binds directy to the enums and gets the
value. No need to use ObjectDataProvider.
You're putting too much responsibility on the UI, where it does not belong. Create a proper ViewModel and have your data processed by the ViewModel in such a way that it facilitates regular DataBinding to the UI. Don't resort to reflection and other types of uneeded hacks in order to put logic in the wrong layer.

Bind to DependencyProperty on Custom Class

I'm having issues binding to a custom class. The dependencyproperty does not seem to get the correct value from my viewmodel. Here is my custom class:
public class DataResource : DependencyObject
{
public static readonly DependencyProperty ContentProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register("Content",
typeof(object),
typeof(DataResource));
public object Content
{
get { return (object)GetValue(ContentProperty); }
set { SetValue(ContentProperty, value); }
}
}
And in my UserControl resources, I have:
<UserControl.Resources>
<local:DataResource x:Key="dataResource" Content="{Binding Test}"></data:DataResource>
</UserControl.Resources>
"Test" in my ViewModel is a property that I can bind a Label to with no issues. Am I doing something wrong here in this implementation?
Update: This works if I inherit from Freezable instead of DependencyObject. I'm not quite sure why, hopefully somone can explain this.

There is no context in the Resources, the DataResource would need to be placed somewhere in the UserControl so it can inherit the DataContext so that the binding (which is relative to the DataContext unless a source is defined) is complete.
(A problem with that is that DependencyObject don't even have a "real" DataContext as that property belongs to FrameworkElement, if you are lucky there is an artificial context though)

You can also use the FrameworkElement.SetBinding method on the Dependency Property in your code behind. Then you don't need to set the data context for the entire page (since DataContext and DP's don't mix well).
Here is the MSDN on that:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms598273.aspx
Sample:
MyData myDataObject = new MyData(DateTime.Now);
Binding myBinding = new Binding("MyDataProperty");
myBinding.Source = myDataObject;
myText.SetBinding(TextBlock.TextProperty, myBinding);

Since content seems to be of type object -which leads me to believe that will be used to host a class- , the problem might actually be the
depth of "listening". If a property of Test changes (a.k.a. change of a string) you will be notified. If a property of Test is an object that doesn't inherit from DependencyObject and a property of it gets changed, you will not get notified. The last scenario goes on recursively.
According to Microsoft Documentation :
[...]
Detailed change notification: Unlike other DependencyObject objects, a Freezable object provides change notifications when sub-property values change.
[...]

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}