I have a CalendarView that looks like this:
<CalendarView
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="300dp"
android:id="#+id/createReservationCalendarView" />
Here is how I handle the DateChange event without MvvmCross:
protected override void OnCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState)
{
... Code ...
calendar.DateChange += (s, args) =>
{
var year = args.Year;
var month = args.Month + 1;
var dayOfMont = args.DayOfMonth;
var date = new DateTime(year, month, dayOfMont);
var myReservations = new Intent(this, typeof(CreateReservationTimeslotScreen));
myReservations.PutExtra("selectedDate", date.Ticks);
StartActivity(myReservations);
};
}
Now that I have switched to MvvmCross, I would like to have my ViewModel start the new activity instead.
Im not sure how to do this, since the ViewModel should be OS and UI agnostic.
The "args" argument is of type CalendarView.DateChangeEventArgs, which is Android specific, so I cant use that in the ViewModel. It derives from System.EventArgs, so maybe I could use that instead. I am thinking that there must be a simpler way.
A thought that I had was if it is possible to update a property on the ViewModel from the activity, and then execute the switch to the new Activity from there? I'm not sure how this could be accomplished since activites dont have references to their ViewModels.
Any suggestions?
Thanks.
MvvmCross does give you access to your ViewModel from your View. The relationship between your View (e.g. Activity/fragment in Android) and your ViewModel, and their ability to share data (models) in both directions is a core characteristic a Mvvm framework.
In order to setup an Activity to be used with MvvmCross you need to make sure to inherit from MvxActivity or MvxAppCompatActivity (If using Android Support Library). Following which you need to link your Activity to its corresponding ViewModel using one of the possible conventions (See link, for basic sample of each registration offered by the MvxViewModelViewTypeFinder). A simple example would be to use the concrete type based registration using the type parameter overload.
public class FirstActivity : MvxAppCompatActivity<FirstViewModel>
Now that you have access to your ViewModel from your View you can create a command that can be used to execute the navigation:
CalendarViewModel (ViewModel linked to the current Activity in question)
Create a command that requires a DateTime parameter, which in turn will pass the value when navigation (see MvvmCross Navigation docs for alternative navigation and parameter passing conventions).
public class CalendarViewModel : MvxViewModel
{
IMvxCommand _goToMyReservationCommand;
public IMvxCommand GoToMyReservationCommand =>
_goToMyReservationCommand ??
(_goToMyReservationCommand = new MvxCommand<DateTime>(NavigateToMyReservation));
void NavigateToMyReservation(DateTime reservationDate)
{
ShowViewModel<MyReservationViewModel>(
new GoToMyReservationParameter
{
ReservationTicks = reservationDate.Ticks
});
}
}
Navigation Parameter Class
Holds the values and type information used for navigation.
public class GoToMyReservationParameter
{
public long ReservationTicks { get; set; }
}
MyReservationViewModel
The ViewModel that will receive the value passed.
public class MyReservationViewModel : MvxViewModel
{
public void Init(GoToMyReservationParameter parameters)
{
var reservationTicks = parameters.ReservationTicks;
// Do what you need with the parameters
}
}
View
Execute the command on the ViewModel and pass through the DateTime object.
public class CalendarActivity : MvxAppCompatActivity<CalendarViewModel>
{
protected override void OnCreate(Bundle bundle)
{
... Code...
calendar.DateChange += (s, args) =>
{
var year = args.Year;
var month = args.Month + 1;
var dayOfMont = args.DayOfMonth;
var date = new DateTime(year, month, dayOfMont);
ViewModel.GoToMyReservationCommand.Execute(date);
};
}
}
My problem is very simple, but all the options confuse me...
In my MEF/Prism-application, I want to attach a specific behavior to one specific region. The doumentation says, that you can do it that way:
IRegion region = regionManager.Region["Region1"];
region.Behaviors.Add("MyBehavior", new MyRegion());
But where should I put this? Is there some place, this is supposed to be done in a bootstrapper method? Currently, I am adding the behavior like this in the Loaded-event of the shell:
/// <summary>
/// Interaction logic for Shell.xaml
/// </summary>
[Export(typeof(Shell))]
public partial class Shell
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public Shell(IRegionManager regionManager, ElementViewInjectionBehavior elementViewInjectionBehavior)
{
InitializeComponent();
Loaded += (sender, args) =>
{
IRegion region = regionManager.Regions[RegionNames.ElementViewRegion];
region.Behaviors.Add("ElementViewInjection", elementViewInjectionBehavior);
};
}
}
Is this a good solution. I'd rather do it in the bootstrapper, so that it is done in the same place as the other region behavior registrations (ConfigureDefaultRegionBehaviors()).
So, the question: Where is the best place to add the behavior to one single region?
I just came up with a slightly improved solution, using a static string collection in the behavior to add the regions to attach the behavior to.
public class ViewModelInjectionBehavior : RegionBehavior, IDisposable
{
private static List<string> _regionNames;
public static List<string> Regions
{
get { return _regionNames ?? (_regionNames = new List<string>()); }
}
protected override void OnAttach()
{
if (Regions.Contains(Region.Name)) {...}
}
}
Then in my bootstrapper, I can define the regions:
protected override IRegionBehaviorFactory ConfigureDefaultRegionBehaviors()
{
var behaviorFactory = base.ConfigureDefaultRegionBehaviors();
ViewModelInjectionBehavior.Regions.Add(RegionNames.ElementViewRegion);
behaviorFactory.AddIfMissing("ElementViewInjectionBehavior", typeof(ViewModelInjectionBehavior));
return behaviorFactory;
}
At least, the behavior is universally usable now...
We had the same issue - in the end we just checked the region name in the region behaviour and acted only if it was that region that we wanted, kind of sucks because you are attaching the behaviour to all regions - but for us it was better than the suggested solution..
An example looks like :
public class TrackViewOpenerBehaviour : IRegionBehavior
{
public IRegion Region { get; set; }
public void Attach()
{
if (this.Region.Name == ApplicationRegions.WorkspaceRegion
|| this.Region.Name == ApplicationRegions.DialogRegion)
{
this.Region.Views.CollectionChanged += (sender, e) =>
{
//Code Here.
};
}
}
}
I always thought maybe we could create a behaviour that was responsible for attaching other behaviours to specfiic regions for us, then we could register that in the bootstrapper - but never got round to it.
I am using Prism 2, trying to add four navigation buttons (First Record, Last Record, Previous Record, Next Record) in shell to be used by modules. I also want these buttons to be disable if active View/ViewModel does not provide these functions.
I tried using events but didn't know how to achieve my second goal regarding disabling buttons. It seems I need to check current active View/ViewModel to see if they subscribed the click event during View switch. But I think publisher should be unaware of subscriber...
Somehow I tried my own way. I create an IDocNavigation interface which has four method corresponding to my four buttons. At runtime I check modules' ViewModel if they implemented that interface or not, and change the ICommand on fly. Below is my code. I include one LastRecordCommand only:
public ShellViewModel(Views.Shell shell)
{
this.Shell = shell;
shell.DataContext = this;
shell.MainDocking.ActivePaneChanged += (s, e) =>
{
if (e.NewPane.Content is UserControl &&
((UserControl)e.NewPane.Content).DataContext is IDocumentNavigate)
{
IDocumentNavigate vm = ((UserControl)e.NewPane.Content).DataContext as IDocumentNavigate;
LastRecordCommand = new RelayCommand(x => vm.GotoLastRecord(), x => true);
}
else
{
LastRecordCommand = new RelayCommand(x => { }, x => false);
}
};
//...
I feel these are quite ugly. Creating an empty RelayCommand is also stupid. How can I improve ? or how can I achieve disabling command if event is more suitable in my case ?
You can make use of CompositeCommand in prism.
Define a globally available CompositeCommand
public static readonly CompositeCommand FirstRecord= new CompositeCommand(true);
Then in your your module view models
class Module1
{
public DelegateCommand Module1Firstrecord{ get; set; }
Module1()
{
Module1Firstrecord = new DelegateCommand(this.FirstRecord, CanExecute);
}
private void FirstRecord()
{
//do whatever you want
}
private bool CanExecute()
{
return true;
}
private void Module1_IsActiveChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//Find if your window is acive
// if it is active Module1Firstrecord.IsActive = true
//else false.
}
}
With IActiveAware you can handle the active window scenario easily. According to whether your active module have a handler for the command on not the buttons will enable/disable.
All of my tables have common audit fields: modifiedBy,modifiedDateTime, etc.
I would like to have these automatically set, and can set most of them with the following code:
partial class myEntities
{
partial void OnContextCreated()
{
this.SavingChanges += new EventHandler(Entities_SavingChanges);
}
private void Entities_SavingChanges(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
IEnumerable<ObjectStateEntry> objectStateEntries =
from ose
in this.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntries(EntityState.Added | EntityState.Modified)
where ose.Entity != null
select ose;
var auditDate = DateTime.Now;
var auditUser = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name;//I wish
foreach (ObjectStateEntry entry in objectStateEntries)
{
ReadOnlyCollection<FieldMetadata> fieldsMetaData = entry.CurrentValues.DataRecordInfo.FieldMetadata;
FieldMetadata modifiedField = fieldsMetaData.Where(f => f.FieldType.Name == "ModifiedBy").FirstOrDefault();
if (modifiedField.FieldType != null)
{
string fieldTypeName = modifiedField.FieldType.TypeUsage.EdmType.Name;
if (fieldTypeName == PrimitiveTypeKind.String.ToString())
{
entry.CurrentValues.SetString(modifiedField.Ordinal, auditUser);
}
}
}
}
}
The problem is that there doesn't appear to be any way to get access to the current user. The app is intranet only, using Windows auth.
Is there a way to either pass in a parameter, or get access to the HttpContext (which doesn't seem like it would be a good idea, but I'm stuck)? Is there a way to populate the EventArgs with information?
Check out the section where the poster has overridden the SaveChanges method (6th code box down on the page). This way you can pass in the UserID and perform your audit and not have to use an event handler.
i'm trying to wrap my head around how to enterprise up my code: taking a simple routine and splitting it up into 5 or 6 methods in 3 or 4 classes.
i quickly came up three simple examples of code how i currently write it. Could someone please convert these into an MVC/MVP obfuscated version?
Example 1: The last name is mandatory. Color the text box red if nothing is entered. Color it green if stuff is entered:
private void txtLastname_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//Lastname mandatory.
//Color pinkish if nothing entered. Greenish if entered.
if (txtLastname.Text.Trim() == "")
{
//Lastname is required, color pinkish
txtLastname.BackColor = ControlBad;
}
else
{
//Lastname entered, remove the coloring
txtLastname.BackColor = ControlGood;
}
}
Example 2: The first name is optional, but try to get it. We'll add a bluish tint to this "try to get" field:
private void txtFirstname_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//Firstname can be blank.
//Hint them that they should *try* to get it with a bluish color.
//If they do enter stuff: it better be not all spaces.
if (txtFirstname.Text == "")
{
//Nothing there, hint it blue
txtFirstname.BackColor = ControlRequired;
}
else if (txtFirstname.Text.Trim() == "")
{
//They entered spaces - bad user!
txtFirstname.BackColor = ControlBad;
}
else
{
//Entered stuff, remove coloring
txtFirstname.BackColor = SystemColors.Window;
}
}
Example 3 The age is totally optional. If an age is entered, it better be valid:
private void txtAge_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//Age is optional, but if entered it better be valid
int nAge = 0;
if (Int32.TryParse(txtAge.Text, out nAge))
{
//Valid integer entered
if (nAge < 0)
{
//Negative age? i don't think so
txtAge.BackColor = ControlBad;
}
else
{
//Valid age entered, remove coloring
txtAge.BackColor = SystemColors.Window;
}
}
else
{
//Whatever is in there: it's *not* a valid integer,
if (txtAge.Text == "")
{
//Blank is okay
txtAge.BackColor = SystemColors.Window;
}
else
{
//Not a valid age, bad user
txtAge.BackColor = ControlBad;
}
}
}
Every time i see MVC code, it looks almost like random splitting of code into different methods, classes, and files. i've not been able to determine a reason or pattern to their madness. Without any understanding of they why it's being one some way, it makes no sense. And using the words model, view, controller and presenter, like i'm supposed to know what that means, doesn't help.
The model is your data.
The view shows data on screen.
The controller is used to carry out
the users actions
And oranges taste orangy.
Here's my attempt at splitting things up in order to make the code more difficult to follow. Is this anywhere close to MVC?
private void txtFirstname_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
FirstnameTextChangedHandler(sender, e);
}
private void FirstnameTextChangedHandler(sender, e)
{
string firstname = GetFirstname();
Color firstnameTextBoxColor = GetFirstnameTextBoxColor(firstname);
SetFirstNameTextBoxColor(firstnameTextBoxColor);
}
private string GetFirstname()
{
return txtFirstname.Text;
}
private Color GetFirstnameTextBoxColor(string firstname)
{
//Firstname can be blank.
//Hint them that they should *try* to get it with a bluish color.
//If they do enter stuff: it better be not all spaces.
if (firstname == "")
{
//Nothing there, hint it blue
return GetControlRequiredColor();
}
else if (firstname.Trim() == "")
{
//They entered spaces - bad user!
return GetControlBadColor();
}
else
{
//Entered stuff, remove coloring
return GetControlDefaultColor();
}
}
private Color GetControlRequiredColor()
{
return ControlRequired;
}
private Color GetControlBadColor()
{
return ControlBad;
}
private Color GetControlGoodColor()
{
return ControlGood;
}
//am i doin it rite
i've obfuscated the code, but it's still altogether. The next step in the MVC obfuscation, i gather, is to hide the code in 3 or 4 different files.
It's that next step that i don't understand. What is the logical separation of which functions are moved into what other classes? Can someone translate my 3 simple examples above into full fledged MVC obfuscation?
Edit: Not ASP/ASP.NET/Online. Pretend it's on a desktop, handheld, surface, kiosk. And pretend it's language agnostic.
The purpose of MVC/MVP patterns is not obfuscation, but separation of concerns. Obfuscation is to (conceal the) intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret: ref. The use of patterns is to make the code cleaner and more understandable. I suggest you start out by reading the wikipedia entries on MVC and MVP.
Both patterns are ways of structuring your code so that your application is broken up into elements that carry out specific purposes that have clearly defined interaction boundaries. Rather than having code that specifically addresses business concerns, input/output handling, and presentation throughout the various classes of the application, these concerns are separated and isolated in the various architectural components. These architectural elements are insulated from one another by the interaction boundaries (interfaces) making them more independent of one another and easier to modify without affect the application as a whole.
The main idea I have when implementing MVC for Windows Forms is that I want to have unit tests for my model and my controller. In order to achieve that, my controller should not know anything about the views using it, and so any notifications that should be handled on UI level are implemented as events. In your example, my controller would look something like this:
class Controller
{
// This is the model we are operating on
private Model model_;
public enum Status
{
Normal,
Required,
Good,
Bad
}
public delegate void FirstNameStatusChangedDelegate(Status newStatus);
public event FirstNameStatusChangedDelegate FirstNameStatusChangedEvent;
public string FirstName
{
get { return model_.FirstName; }
set
{
if (value == "")
RaiseFirstNameStatusChanged(Status.Required);
else if ( value.Trim() == "" )
RaiseFirstNameStatusChanged(Status.Bad);
else
{
model_.FirstName = value;
RaiseFirstNameStatusChanged(Status.Normal);
}
}
}
private void RaiseFirstNameStatusChanged(Status newStatus)
{
if ( FirstNameStatusChangedEvent != null )
FirstNameStatusChangedEvent(newStatus);
}
}
And the view would provide handlers for the FirstNameStatusChanged event:
class View : Form
{
private Controller controller_;
private static readonly Dictionary<Controller.Status, Color> statusColors_ = new Dictionary<Controller.Status, Color>
{
{Controller.Status.Normal, SystemColors.Window},
{Controller.Status.Required, ControlRequired},
{Controller.Status.Good, ControlGood},
{Controller.Status.Bad, ControlRed}
};
public View(Controller controller)
{
InitializeComponent();
controller_ = controller;
contoller_.FirstNameStatusChangedEvent += OnFirstNameStatusChanged;
}
private void txtFirstname_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{ controller_.FirstName = txtFirstName.Text; }
private void OnFirstNameStatusChanged(Controller.Status newStatus)
{ txtFirstName.BackColor = statusColors_[newStatus]; }
}
Most of what you doing in your code belongs to the Controller class since it describes the the logic. Your View should just describe UI and give easy access to UI components. Model class should describe your data model.
The idea is simple: Controller does everything, but it has to know about the View and the Model. For example as View is initialized, Controller sets up all the logic ( kinda what you already doing). As Model is assigned to the Controller - it sets the values into appropriate UI controls and does the same to retrieve data and return is as Model.
So basically you give your data model class to the controller, it does the editing and returns your data as model class again.
It would be very hard to follow MVC in classic ASP.NET if possible, so I will reply based on MVP.
On your first example, you are trying to do a validation. Validating a surname is the responsibility of Presenter. Showing the field red is the responsibility of View. So, your view class would be like this:
private void Page_Load()
{
this._presenter = new Presenter();
}
private void txtLastname_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
txtLastName.BackColor = presenter.IsLastnameValid(txtLastName.Text) ?
ControlGood : ControlBad;
}
And your presenter class would be something like this:
public Presenter()
{
public bool IsLastNameValid(string lastname)
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(lastname);
}
}
Last name is your model here.
Please note that I prepared this classes only for showing how would you form an MVP structure. In real world, there are lots of better ways to do validation. Normally you would use this approach for your business instead of validation.
Ian,
If you want the controls to validate immediately, you need to use javascript or jQuery. This is also true for classic ASP.NET. Since you are using Code Behind methods, I assume that your validation waits for a postback.
The following examples are from the NerdDinner project. NerdDinner is an open source project that serves as an example of ASP.NET MVC architecture. The authors have graciously provided a tutorial with it, available at http://nerddinnerbook.s3.amazonaws.com/Intro.htm
When a form is submitted in ASP.NET MVC, it enters the corresponding controller as a FormCollection object:
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Edit(int id, FormCollection formValues) {
Dinner dinner = dinnerRepository.GetDinner(id);
try
{
UpdateModel(dinner);
dinnerRepository.Save();
}
catch
{
ModelState.AddModelErrors(dinner.GetRuleViolations())
}
return RedirectToAction("Details", new { id = dinner.DinnerID });
}
UpdateModel takes the form values and attempts to stuff them into the dinner object. The dinner object looks like this:
public partial class Dinner {
public bool IsValid {
get { return (GetRuleViolations().Count() == 0); }
}
public IEnumerable<RuleViolation> GetRuleViolations() {
yield break;
}
public IEnumerable<RuleViolation> GetRuleViolations() {
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(Title))
yield return new RuleViolation("Title is required", "Title");
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(Description))
yield return new RuleViolation("Description is required", "Description");
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(HostedBy))
yield return new RuleViolation("HostedBy is required", "HostedBy");
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(Address))
yield return new RuleViolation("Address is required", "Address");
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(Country))
yield return new RuleViolation("Country is required", "Address");
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(ContactPhone))
yield return new RuleViolation("Phone# is required", "ContactPhone");
if (!PhoneValidator.IsValidNumber(ContactPhone, Country))
yield return new RuleViolation("Phone# does not match country", "ContactPhone");
yield break;
}
partial void OnValidate(ChangeAction action) {
if (!IsValid)
throw new ApplicationException("Rule violations prevent saving");
}
}
Notice the IsValid method and the RuleViolations enumerator. If everything is set up properly, all you have to do is define your validations in here, and ASP.NET MVC will take care of the rest for you.
The final validated result looks like this:
I encourage you to get the NerdDinner application and tutorial at http://nerddinner.codeplex.com/