Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

ViewModel tree vs. frequently updating Model tree

In my WPF MVVM application my model is a complex tree of Model objects wich constantly changes at runtime. Model instances come and go at runtime, change their position within the tree and of course change their many properties. My View is almost a one-to-one visual representation of that tree. Every Model instance is in 80% of the cases also a node in the tree.

My question is now how I would design the ViewModel around this? My problem is that there are quite a lot of different Model types with each quite a lot of properties. If I understood MVVM corretcly the view should not communicate with the Model directly so this would mean that I would have to create a ViewModel type for each Model type and have to rewrap each property of the Model type in the ViewModel.

Also the ViewModel would need to "bind" to the propertychanges of the Model to pass it along to the view (using wpf datatbinding). I would need some factory that creates and introduces a ViewModel instance for each Model that appears anew and I would habe to dispose each ViewModel instance when the corresponding Model disappears. I end up keeping track of all instances I created. It is unbelievable how much bloat code is generated dues to this double wrapping. Is this really a good approach? Each entity and each property more ore less exists twice and I have a lot of extra code keeping Model and View in sync. How do you handle this? Is there a more clever way to solve this?

Does anyone have a reference/sample implementation for this that does it better than I do?

like image 720
bitbonk Avatar asked Jan 24 '23 02:01

bitbonk


1 Answers

I think you may run into trap of paradigm if you follow this path. MVVM is nothing more than a pattern, which simplifies development in WPF world. If it doesn't - don't use it or revise your approach. I wouldn't spend 80% of my time just to check the "Using MVVM" field.

Now back to your question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are looking at MVVM from opposite direction: you don't need Model to ViewModel one-to-one correspondence. Usually you create ViewModels based on your View first, and only then on a Model.

Generally you look on a screen mockup from graphic designers, and create corresponding ViewModel, which takes all necessary fields from the Model, wraps/modify/format/combine them to make View development as easy as possible.

You said that your View is almost one-to-one visual representation of the Model. In this case it may have sense to create a very simple ViewModel which exposes root object of your model-tree, and let View consume model directly via that property. Then if you need some View customizations or commands processing you can delegate that to ViewModel.

Sorry for very vague answer. Maybe if you ask more specific question we could dispel the confusion :)...

like image 135
Anvaka Avatar answered Feb 12 '23 00:02

Anvaka