I have an Android app which uses a SupportActionBar that contains a bunch of tabs. These tabs each have a fragment that in turn are connected to a ViewModel in my core project. This works great and when i start the app they are all initialized right away and setup correctly.
What i would like to do is to call on a method on one of these ViewModels from my main activity that contains all the tabs and fragments.
I read in another post that in WP you could cast the DataContext to the ViewModel but that might not work in Android. I haven't been able to do this, maybe because my DataContext is not the currently displayed ViewModel but the MainViewModel connected to my main activity. Or maybe it's not supposed to be done that way, i'm not sure.
I'm trying to do this:
var test = (MessagesViewModel)this.DataContext;
test.GetViewDataFromApi();
To update the data in the view when i press the tab. I can't use the Init function for this for example since the ViewModel isn't recreated everytime i show the view.
Are you trying to update some data in the tab's fragment when tab is selected?
If that's the case, one way to do it is to
1) handle the tab selection event to get the current tab(maybe using TabListener),
2) get the fragment (MvxFagment) in the selected tab
3) get the (IMvxViewModel) view-model from the fragment
4) call the method you need to update data on the view-model
I assume you are using a MvxFragment (https://github.com/MvvmCross/MvvmCross/blob/v3.1/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross.Droid.Fragging/Fragments/MvxFragment.cs?source=cc) so you can access the view-model from the MvxFragment's ViewModel property.
Related
I have done a RegisterAppStart<FirstViewModel>() in the Core App.cs, now I navigate to FirstViewModel, then SecondViewModel and finally ThirdViewModel using ShowViewModel(),
Is there a way I want to navigate to the viewmodel which has been registered using RegisterAppStart<>(), I mean is this persisted or saved somewhere during run?
All I want is to get this value at runtime.
If you want to use a singleton instance of a view model then you can do this using a custom view model locator - see the wiki - https://github.com/MvvmCross/MvvmCross/wiki/Customising-using-App-and-Setup - "overriding view model location and construction"
I have a command that shows a view model:
private void DoShowImportCommand()
{
this.ShowViewModel<GeometryImportViewModel>();
}
but I only want to execute it if that view model isn't already shown. Is there a way to
detect if that view model is already on screen and if so don't execute the command?
MvvmCross doesn't track this by default - what is currently shown depends on the UI and can be interpreted in different ways in different situations (popups, tabs, pivots, dialogs, back stacks, etc)
If you want to track this in your own application, you could do it using UI project components (e.g. custom presenters) or you could do it using a shared code component - e.g. you could add "alive" tracking to the Views/ViewModels (see the N=42 video on http://mvvmcross.blogspot.com) and could then use some service to track which viewmodels are shown.
In my Windows Phone App there's a simple hierarchical model consisting of a class containing a collection of other domain objects.
In my xaml i have declared an ItemsContainer control that renders the items in the above mentioned collection as simple rectangles.
Now, at the VM level i have a structure that resembles my model with a parent VM having a collection of children VMs. Each child-VM encapsulates its own model.
Whenever the user taps the view bound to a child-VM a method of the parent-model object should be invoked taking the relevant child-model as parameter. This will in turn change some internal state that will be reflected (possibly) on all the child-views (not just the tapped one).
SO... given that i'm using the MVVM Light framework my current implementation is as follows:
Child-VM exposes a command
The command Execute method will use the messenger to notify the parent-VM of the tap event. The message (GenericMessage class) content will be the domain object encapsulated by the VM
The parent-VM executes the method of the parent-model using the message content as parameter
If the operation succeeds the parent-VM sends a new message to inform child-VMs of this fact. Once again the message content is the model object used as parameter in the method that was just invoked
Child-VMs raise a couple of PropertyChanged events that, finally, will update the bound views
It works but i fill it's a bit cumbersome. The thing that bugs me the most is the fact that when a child-view is tapped the associated VM will broadcast its encapsulated model object. Do you feel that there would be a better way of implementing such a system?
Thanks in advance for your precious help
Could you not just put the command on the parent viewmodel and pass the child viewmodel as the command parameter?
The parent view model can then just call methods on the child viewmodels to update them. I'm not sure I see the need for all these messages?
First off, I've done a lot of research on the web (including this site) and have found lots of conflicting information on how the model and controller communicate in an MVC pattern. Here is my specific question (I'm using AS3), but it's a general MVC question...
I have two main components... a list of recipes and a form that displays a selected recipe. The form has an edit state that allows you to edit the recipe and then save or cancel the changes. What is the best way (using MVC principles) to handle changes made to a recipe? So far, I have the save button trigger an event which is captured by the controller.
Should I have the save button (the view) pass an object with the current state of the fields along with the event (some logic in view)? Should I allow the controller to hold access to the view and have the controller figure out what's in the fields on its own (added coupling)? Should events be made every time a field in the form is changed and the controller keeps track of the state of each field (lots of events)? Or is their another way? Note: I don't want to bind the fields to the model because I only want the data to save if the save button is clicked.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Should I have the save button (the view) pass an object with the
current state of the fields along with the event (some logic in view)?
yes, this is not 'logic in the view', it does not decide anything, simply reporting an action and its current state
Should I allow the controller to hold access to the view and have the
controller figure out what's in the fields on its own (added
coupling)?
no, this would become very messy, pass a VO with the event
Should events be made every time a field in the form is changed and
the controller keeps track of the state of each field (lots of
events)?
is an option, but this basically is the same as hitting the save button, the trigger is different (TextField.onChange), but you can dispatch the same event (setup is form = view, dispatches one general event with a VO, not an event for each field)
Or is their another way?
MVC flow w/ events:
onClick save btn: a RecipeEvent.SAVE is dispatched (from the view), with a VO (value object) containing the Recipe data (e.g. RecipeVO)
the controller catches this, and as the controller is where the logic resides, it decides what to do with it: update the RecipesModel (either directly by calling a method on the model, or by a custom event e.g. RecipeModelEvent.SAVE)
the model stores the data, and dispatches the RecipeEvent.UPDATE event (with the RecipeVO)
the views updated itself accordingly (check if the RecipeVO.ID is same, update data representation e.g. title…)
optionally, a controller could save the data to a back-end/remote database
As for the event listeners: views listen to the model, controller listen to the views.
About de-coupling:
use interfaces (by using an IModel you can swap out the model easily by another implementation, as you register the event listeners against the interface instead of the actual implementation)
Obviously, all this results in a lot of registering/removing event listeners, and keeping reference to the models/views/controllers to be able to register to the appropriate instance. An alternative is to use a framework as RobotLegs, as it makes a central event-bus available + easy/automatic cleanup of event listeners in the mediator class of a view.
I think this is really a database question. what I would do is create a stored procedure that first checks to see if the recipe already exists. If yes then update it. If not then add a new recipe. (you'll have to bind your entity to a stored procedure. other MVC frameworks can do this. I don't know about actionscript)
if that's not an option then I guess you would have to cache the original form in a helper class in the controller and then compare it to what the user is trying to save. And have the controller decide whether to update the recipe.
I think it's much cleaner to use the first way, but I've never used actionscript so...
Colin Moock's lecture on MVC in ActionScript is quite old, but still one of the best explications: http://www.moock.org/lectures/mvc/
Your model should populate your view, and your view should send input events to the controller, which should decide what to do with the input. As g10 says, wait until the save button is clicked and then pass an object with the modified fields up to the controller for processing. The controller can then decide whether or not to accept it, and whether to update an existing model object or create a new one.
I have a tree control in my GUI (with naturally lots of GUI/platform specific functions to handle the nodes).
I have a data model with its own complex set of nodes, children, properties etc..
I want the tree to display a representation of the model, be able to send messages to the nodes inside the model and be told to redraw itself when the model changes.
But I don't want the GUI code to need to know the details of the model's data types and I don't want to pollute the model by linking it to the GUI classes.
I can't get my head around how the controller is supposed to do this and what functions it should provide?
(this is in C++ but that shouldn't matter)
GUI "controls" don't quite fit neatly into a model-view-controller pattern because they typically have their own internal model rather than accepting a reference to one. If the control is structured that way, you'll need an adapter class that "data-binds" the control's internal model to the underlying data model.
This can accomplish something similar to what model-view-controller would, except that the adapter class plays the role both of a view hookup component (updating the GUI from the data model) and a controller (interpreting GUI events into model actions).
Qt provides a group of classes for model-view programming. You can hook a tree view to a filesystem model, for example, and neither directly know anything about each other (except a pointer to the model in the view).
Your requirements are:
Tree displays representation of model
Nodes in tree can send messages to nodes inside model
Tree redraws itself based on model changes
I don't know exactly what kind of data you're working with here, but a hierarchical model is a fairly simple thing. I'll take it as a given you know how to iterate hierarchical data and populate a tree view.
Your controller should have member function(s) for sending messages to the model. The parameters should be a model element and the message you want to send. This way, the UI is completely unaware of how the message gets to the element, but can get the messages through.
The last requirement is more tricky, and depends on a few things (e.g., the lifetime of the controller, application architecture, etc.) I'm going to assume the controller lives as long as the tree view does. If that's the case, then your controller should provide a way to set a callback on model changes. Then, when the controller changes the model, it can callback to the UI without being aware of the UI.
i think your troubles start with an unfortunate choice of words. the 'control' thingies doesn't have anything to do with the 'controller' in MVC. that's why some GUI libraries use other names (widgets is a common one).
your 'tree control' is the view, not the controller. it should be tied to the GUI, both for display, and to get GUI events and turn them into 'tree events'.
the controller gets those 'tree events' and does the necessary modifications to the model. that's where you couple the 'action' with the 'response'.
First Solution: You can implement a "Subject observer" pattern between model and view, with model as the subject and view as the observer. Whenever there is a change in the state of model, it can fire a event to all the observers those are registered, they can update themselves.
Second Solution: Introduce a controller, which registers with model as observer. Upon receiving a event for update from Model, it can update the view. Even you can decouple view from controller using one more subject observer pattern between controller and view
Third Solution: Use MVP pattern. Model view Presenter. This pattern used whenever there is no much computation in controller i.e., job of the controller is just to update its corresponding view. Here controller becomes Presenter.
You need a controller that sits outside the display widget but has the state of the tree (in MFc there are CTreeView/CTreeCtrl classes - there is a similiar separation in Qt) the tree controller handles all the data storage and calls redraws on the tree widget.
Changes in the tree widget get sent to the tree controller - so this controller needs to know about the gui functions.
The model will need set/get functions for all the relevant parameters for the nodes. But these can return simple types so aren't dependent on the gui.
Updating the view form the model requires sending a message, if you don't want the model to know about your gui messaging the best you can do is register a callback function (a void pointer to a function) from the tree controller - and call this to do an update.
This update function can then query the model for the changes.