Let's say I have a bunch of kittens. Perhaps I have a KittenViewModel. I want to show it as a kitten card in a card view, but also as broken down into columns in a list view. Does MvvmCross support binding the KittenViewModel to multiple views? Should I have multiple ViewModels that refer back to a single model?
Disclaimer: I know that I am replying to an old question which you may well have forgotten; this is for posterity. Also, I have limited understanding of the MVVM design pattern. I remember reading somewhere that Views and ViewModels are typically in 1-to-1 correspondence, so the conventional answer is probably "You shouldn't do that. Reconsider your design."
With that being said, I recently struggled with this for a while before coming up with a very simple solution that operates under the following assumptions: (1) you wish to use the exact same instance of a ViewModel in two separate Views; (2) for whatever reason, you cannot use a DataTemplateSelector to determine which View to use; and (3) you do not mind creating multiple Views for the same ViewModel.
The solution is to define separate data templates for the KittenViewModel as resources for whatever controls you are going to use to display the data. For example, if you have created a KittenCardView user control and intend to display it in a ContentControl, you can set the DataTemplate in a ContentControl resource, something like:
<ContentControl>
<Control.Resources>
<DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type viewmodel:KittenViewModel}">
<view:KittenCardView/>
</DataTemplate>
</Control.Resources>
</ContentControl>
The KittenColumnView (or whatever you call it) would be handled similarly. You may find it helpful to define one of the Views as a Window or App resource if typically use one and only need the other in special circumstances.
Related
Here is my problem with my dropdowns:
As an automation tester, I have some issues using Selenium's Select(); method 'bout dropdown fields. If I have to run a test in multiple cycles and select different option from the dropdown every next cycle, I just used Select(); method and it worked great.
Now the problem is that in the HTML code I do not even see the option of the dropdown. The field is changed to dynamic, it is not static anymore.
How can I work around this feature or is it just a bad programming practice?
I think it's not bad practice to have dynamic options in a dropdown menu.
To write an end-to-end test for this it depends how dynamic these options are. If they change from release to release (e.g. the available product categories in the system), you should probably encode them in your test. In that way the test will have to be updated if the options are updated, which makes sense (the test will fail if it doesn't find the options it expects).
If the options change by external factors (e.g. the current top 10 trending topics on Twitter) then you cannot encode them in your test. You should then probably try to pick one by index (e.g. the first one) and parameterize the test to handle any value that might be there. Alternatively you could stub the 'TrendingValuesFromTwitterService' (staying with my example) to deliver a fixed set of values for your testing purposes.
Normally static data with Select, Dropdown or combobox is a best practice. Unfortunately, sometimes we need dynamic data with Selects. The best way is to use Fluent Waits for Select contains your option. Also, Thread.sleep() is another solution but it is not preferable. However, it is exact solution. Try to implement fluent or implicit waits for your select options.
For example, ElementToBeVisible or ElementToBeExists etc.
Checkout Selenium Docs
Continuing to work on my port of a CakePHP 1.3 app to 3.0, and have run into another issue. I have a number of areas where functionality varies based on certain settings, and I have previously used a modular component approach. For example, Leagues can have round-robin, ladder or tournament scheduling. This impacts on the scheduling algorithm itself, such that there are different settings required to configure each type, but also dictates the way standings are rendered, ties are broken, etc. (This is just one of 10 areas where I have something similar, though not all of these suffer from the problem below.)
My solution to this in the past was to create a LeagueComponent with a base implementation, and then extend that class as LeagueRoundRobinComponent, LeagueLadderComponent and LeagueTournamentComponent. When controllers need to do anything algorithm-specific, they check the schedule_type field in the leagues table, create the appropriate component, and call functions in it. This still works just fine.
I mentioned that this also affects views. The old solution for this was to pass the league component object from the controller to the view via $this->set. The view can then query it for various functionality. This is admittedly a bit kludgy, but the obvious alternative seems to be extracting all the info the view might require and setting it all individually, which doesn't seem to me to be a lot better. If there's a better option, I'm open to it, but I'm not overly concerned about this at the moment.
The problem I've encountered is when tables need to get some of that component info. The issue at hand is when I am saving my add/edit form and need to deal with the custom settings. In order to be as flexible as possible for the future, I don't have all of these possible setting fields represented in the database, but rather serialize them into a single "custom" column. (Reading this all works quite nicely with a custom constructor and getters.) I had previously done this by loading the component from the beforeSave function in the League model, calling the function that returns the list of schedule-specific settings, extracting those values and serializing them. But with the changes to component access in 3.0, it seems I can no longer create the component in my new beforeMarshal function.
I suppose the controller could "pass" the component to the table by setting it as a property, but that feels like a major kludge, and there must be a better way. It doesn't seem like extending the table class is a good solution, because that would horribly complicate associations. I don't think that custom types are the solution, as I don't see how they'd access a component either. I'm leaning towards passing just the list of fields from the controller to the model, that's more of a "configuration" method. Speaking of configuration, I suppose it could all just go into the central Configure data store, but that's always felt to me like somewhere that you only put "small" data. I'm wondering if there's a better design pattern I could follow that would let the table continue to take care of these implementation details on its own without the controller needing to get involved; if at some point I decide to change from the serialized method to adding all of the possible columns, it would be nice to have those changes restricted to the table class.
Oh, and keep in mind that this list of custom settings is needed in both a view and the table, so whatever solution is proposed will ideally provide a way for both of them to access it, rather than requiring duplication of code.
Is it legal In MVC, so that a "model" make use of "services" to load some data ( from web) so that the data after loading can be passed into a list box of a "view" ?
My focus is on "Can Model make use of Services directly for such purposes?"
V.
I agree with Anshu's answer but I'm personally flexible about this kind of thing on my own projects if I plan them to be very small scale, that is it doesn't seem to always be worth the time to create the clear MVC separation. There's also MVVM based on MVC, some decent info on that on wikipedia and you can find it elsewhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_View_ViewModel
There's no set in stone rules when it comes to design pattern usage, but if you set your own rules and work within them (particularly adhering to MVC in one or more layers of abstraction) can be helpful particularly on large projects or where a team is involved.
So the answer to your question about a model making use of services is yes this is possible, is it conforming to a strict MVC pattern, no.
The model should simply be the structure that holds the data in whatever way the data relates to other data, that's what the model is made up of. The controller handles the dirty work of making the calls to the service and updating the model. The view simply is bound to or updated when changes to the model occur and makes use of the controller (usually in as3 by using event handlers on ui components) to make the right updates to the model (or calls to then update the model).
You'll likely have extra helper classes that may sort of fit somewhere in between or outside of the parts that make up the model the view or the controller, this is okay but you should be conscious of what purpose these serve and document them well and make sure it wouldn't make sense for them to somehow be handled more elegantly within the whole setup.
I would say, its rather the responsibility of the Controller to make use of services and populate the model with the data obtained from services.
This link should provide more clarity about the responsibilities of Model, View and controller in Actionscript-3
How can I know that I need a facade Pattern at a point in my application development?
How can I draw the line between Facade Pattern and Template Pattern?
For example: In [this] article, we see that, int placeOrder(int CustomerID, List<BasketItem> Products) has a number of predefined steps in the algorithm. So why don't the author use Template Pattern here?
Facade deals with interface, not implementation. Its purpose is to hide internal complexity behind a single interface that appears simple on the outside. In the example from your question, the facade hides four classes (Order, OrderLine, Address, BasketItem) behind a single method.
Template method deals with implementation. Its purpose is to extract the common algorithm from several ones that differ only in a 'fill in the blanks' way. The template method in the superclass implements the common algorithm and each subclass 'fills in the blanks' in its own specific way.
So why don't the author use Template Pattern here?
It would make sense to make placeOrder a template method if there were several similar versions of the operation. Maybe a few methods like placePhoneOrder, placeInternetOrder, placeManuallyEnteredOrder could be refactored into a single template placeOrder with some subclasses implementing only the {phone,internet,manual}-specific differences.
The facade pattern is appropriate when you have a complex system that you want to expose to clients in a simplified way, or you want to make an external communication layer over an existing system which is incompatible with your system. It is a structural pattern. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facade_pattern
The template pattern, on the other hand, is a behavioral pattern that will help you when dealing with the inner implementation of a component. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_method_pattern
Suppose you have a few services, libraries or whatever. These libraries need interoperation in order to perform some higher level services. Then you may wish to wrap those calls and intialization code that usually go together and offer a bunch of functions to hide those details and make it simple to use those services for specific scenarios. Then it is a good use for facade pattern.
UPDATE: In the article mentioned the PlaceOrder method has one single implementation that works for all orders. Template pattern is meant to prescribe a series of steps that have to be followed but allow subclasses to offer their custom implementation of those fixed steps. For example, if you needed orders for televisions to be processed differently from orders for microwaves you could use the template pattern to redefine some imaginary DispatchParcel method (to send microwave as a simple package but television with extra service to help lift the heavy device to the upper floor). In our case there is no need for reimplementation of ProcessOrder steps so there is no need for template pattern as one single implementation suits all types of orders.
looking for best practices in web development, when you are writing a web application in a traditional non-framework environment (core PHP or Perl / CGI), what is the cleanest way to organize or map calls from the client to server processes?
The answer is rather trivial when working in a single-scope page where, for example, you have a form to complete and a submit button. You could set the action of the form to "save.php" and have a one-to-one relation between the page and the function it is bound to. So save.php could execute the save action and write to the client the form.
Now, the only non out-of-the-box php enhancement i'm using is a template engine (tinybutstrong). Whenever i have a complex page with multiple forms (for example, for sorting a grid, saving something, requesting something else, an ajax component and a search box), what is your way to lay down the various functions (search, sort, insert, retrieve) to a single display page (index)?
Do you use something like index.php?action=search / index.php?action=insert or something like setting each action to a page that acts like a function (search.php, sort.php, insert.php) each delegating the presentational function to a single script (index.php)? What if the "search" function can be used by varius "views"?
I'm using general terms like search or insert as an example, and the referece to PHP is also only for example, as I think my question is rather general on best practices.
Thanks.
By creating something where there's an action which refers you to a view, you're essentially creating a controller for views, and you're two thirds of the way to MVC. (not that there's anything wrong with that, just that's where you're headed)
Q1. what is the cleanest way to organize or map calls from the client to server processes?
A1. Using the filesystem, but structured semantically based on the structure of your data (if possible) doing something like /search/mysearch is your semantically correct option. Requires a little Apache Mojo
Q1. Do you use something like index.php...
A1. Yes, I wouldn't shy away from this approach. It's ideal to use a little Apache rewrite magic to create nice paths, but aside from that, there isn't any other magic way to create an controller.