We Keep Coding

ViewModel into View

Currently I'm learning C# with WPF. My mainapproach is to use the MVVM pattern the best I can but now I'm a bit confused.
In my Application for all my views I have a viewmodel:
private DruckviewViewModel ViewModel { get; set; }
public Druckview()
{
ViewModel = new DruckviewViewModel();
DataContext = ViewModel;
InitializeComponent();
}
Is this the suggested way to implement the ViewModel into the View or are there better ways to do it?

MVVM doesn't mean no code-behind.
MVVM is the pattern of separation of concerns. It helps to separate your application's architecture to the three parts(in order of appearance):
Model
View
ViewModel
Where Model is class containing your business logic.
View represents your view class which contains only view related logic(XAML and code-behind) It is Ok to have code-behind unless code contains only view's logic (for example in button click eventhandler you copy color of one textbox to another, which of course can be done in XAML, but from MVVM point of view it is not important)
ViewModel represents View's behavior without any reference to the View.
Notice that for example this property on my opinion will violate MVVM pattern, because Visibility is view related type
public Visibility MyVisibility { get; set; }
So dependencies between parts of MVVM goes like this:
Model doesn't know about anything
ViewModel know only about Model
View know about ViewModel
View ---> ViewModel ---> Model
I think for using MVVM is not important how tightly View bounded to the ViewModel. It is already bounded, because you use ViewModel's properties and commands.
Not bounding tightly (for example using interface as ViewModel) will give your possibility to test View without real ViewModel by creating own "design-time" viewmodels for example.
If your current solution works and satisfy your needs and you just starting with MVVM and WPF then continue with that until you meet need to fully isolate View from ViewModel's types

This will work, but it isn't really true to the MVVM pattern, as the View is now directly tied to the View Model.
Most existing MVVM frameworks use the concept of a View Manager. A class that creates a view from a view model instance, connects them together, and displays the view. You would end up with something like this:
DruckviewViewModel vm = new DruckviewViewModel()
ViewManager.Instance.DisplayViewFor(vm);
It would figure out, based on naming conventions, that DruckviewViewModel uses the Druckview. It would create the view, set the DataContextProperty, and make the view visible.
Without using one of these frameworks, this is a lot of work to build on your own, but this is considered a "Best Practice" pattern.
You may want to consider using an existing framework, a good list comparing their features can be found here.
BTW, if you are wondering how to get intellisense in the XAML designer without setting the DataContext in the constructor of the view. The proper way to do it is to add a design instance in XAML, with an attribute like this.
d:DataContext="{d:DesignInstance local:DruckviewViewModel}"

Creating object of view class in ViewModel class in mvvm

I am working on mvvm in c# wpf, I have a little understanding of mvvm.
I am creating an object of my View class in My ViewMode classl.so is it violating mvvm pattern? and how ? it would be great if some one explains this in detail..

The whole point of the MVVM pattern is to maintain separation of the View (the display that presents controls to the user) from the Model (data, the business logic, data-access) and the ViewModel (the glue between the model and the view). The VM should not have to worry about UI (i.e. View) concerns, so creating and using a view within a viewmodel is violating that MVVM pattern.
A View is nearly always made up of UI elements, such as buttons or textblocks. A Viewmodel should be concerned with things like properties, such as a UserName, or a StartDate, or a WarningState. These VM properties are then bound (with DataBinding) to properties on UI elements within a view ... so the view has a dependency on the VM but not the other way around. Where the VM gets the data from to populate those properties in the first place is the model, or for data-entry maybe they'll all be blank to begin with and the application relies on the user entering data in the view.
You might want to bind the WarningState to a TextBox, for example, but equally you could bind it to a ComboBox. Or you could use a converter and bind it to the foreground colour of a rectangle, or the background colour of a UI element that is used for something else entirely different.
The point is that these are things the VM doesn't need to worry about: all it cares about is presenting data/state. It is up to the view how it deals with that information (or doesn't deal with it). In this way you could completely replace the view with a different version, and not have to change anything in your VM ... you have successfully separated your display from your logic.

How can control in the view get specific data from view model?

I have multiple of views (user controls), each with its own ViewModel. To navigate between them I am using buttons. Buttons display image and text from corresponding view model and also need column and row (because there are like 10 views: 10 columns with different number of rows each).
Right now buttons are created dynamically (I made a Navigator control for this) and for view models I have base class to hold text, image, column and row. Number of views available will be different (depends on user level and certain settings), that's why it's I need control here.
Question: how shall my control get data from view models?
Right now I have interface INavigator, defined in (lol) control itself. And view models implement it. I could go opposite, let my control to know about view models. Both looks wrong.
There is a single Navigator control what has, lets say, Items bound to a list of view models. It can cast each view model to INavigator or ViewModelBase (common for all pages) to obtain specific view model image, text, column and row. So either view model knows about control (to implement INavigator) or control knows about ViewModelBase.. And this is a problem, both solution bind tight control and view models, which is bad in mvvm.
Schematically

The way you've drawn your diagram answers your own question as to how you should structure the code for this.
What you need is one VM (let's call it MainVM) which contains an ObservableCollection<VMBase> of the other VMs (using your base type so that they can all happily live in the same collection).
Your View needs an ItemsControl (bound to your ObservableCollection<VMBase>) where you specify a DataTemplate for the Button using the properties exposed by the VMBase type only. Set the Command property in the Button to call SwitchCommand, CommandParameter is set to the item itself (i.e. {Binding .}).
Your View also needs a ContentControl bound to a SelectedVM property on MainVM which you can populate.
Implement SwitchCommand to set the SelectedVM property based on the value from the CommandParameter.
public void ExecuteSwitchCommand(object parameter)
{
var vmBase = parameter as VMBase;
if (vmBase != null)
SelectedVM = vmBase;
}
All properties mentioned here should be INotifyPropertyChanged enabled so that the View registers when they change and updates the UI.
To get the different UIs for the ContentControl, add type-specific DataTemplates for each of your specific VM types to the Resources file of your View (or if you're smart and are building a custom plug-in framework, merge the Resource Dictionaries).
A lot of people forget with MVVM that the whole point is that there is a purposeful separation of View from ViewModel, thus meaning you can potentially have many Views for a single ViewModel, which is what this demonstrates.

I find it's easiest to think of MVVM as a top-down approach... View knows about it's ViewModel, ViewModel knows about its Model, but Model does not know about its ViewModel and ViewModel does not know about its View.
I also find a View-first approach to development the easiest to work with, as UI development in XAML is static (has to be).
I think a lot of people get to wrapped up in 'making every component (M, V, VM) standalone and replaceable', myself included, but I've slowly come to the conclusion that is just counter-productive.
Technically, sure you could get very complicated and using IoC containers, create some ViewLocator object which binds a View-type to a ViewModel-type, but... what exactly does that gain you besides more confusion? It makes it honestly harder (because I've done this at one point) to develop because now you've lost design-time support first and foremost, among other things; and you're still either binding to a specific view model interface in your view or creating the binding at run-time. Why complicate it?
This article is a good read, and the first Note: explicitly talks about View vs. ViewModel. Hopefully, it will help you draw your own conclusions.
To directly answer your question, I think having your ViewModels implement an INavigator interface of some sort is probably ideal. Remember your VM is 'glue' between your view and model/business logic, its job is to transform business data into data that is consumable by your views, so it exists somewhere between both your UI and business layers.
This is why there are things like Messengers and View Services, which is where your navigator service on the ViewModels can fit in nicely.

I think the design has led to a no way out situation.
I believe that creating a custom button control where the dependency properties tie the image, the row and column actually provide a way for the page, which it resides on ,to get that information to them; whether they are dynamically created or not.
Continuing on with that thought. There is no MVVM logic applied to a custom control, the control contains what it needs to do its job and that is through the dependency properties as mentioned. Any functionality of the button should be done by commanding; all this makes the button data driven and robust enough to use in a MVVM methodology or not.
Question: how shall my control get data from view models?
There should only one viewmodel which is the page the control resides on. The control is simply bound to information which ultimately resides on that VM. How it gets there, that is up to the programmer. If the button is going to contain state data, that is bound from its dependency property in a two way fashion back to the item it is bound to.
By keeping VMs out of the buttons and only having one VM that is the best way to segregate and maintain the data. Unless I am really missing something here....

Same as others here I find it a bit hard to actually understand what you are asking, so this is quite general. The answer to the question header is simply: the Control gets the data from the ViewModel through bindings, always. You set the DataContext of your Control to the corresponding ViewModel, and from there you keep the ViewModel and the Control synchronized:
If you add an ItemsControl containing buttons to the View, you add an ObservableCollection<ButtonViewModel> to the ViewModel and bind the ItemsSource of the ItemsControl to this.
If you allow the user to dynamically add content to the View, the actual code that does it resides in the ViewModel, e.g. when the user clicks on a button "Add Button", you use the Command property to call a ViewModel method that adds a ButtonViewModel to the collection and the View will automatically reflect your changes.
There do exist complicated cases that are impossible to code exclusively in the ViewModel, I have found Behaviors to be the missing link there, but I'll get into that when you show me the specific case.
If you'd like to get a working example, please provide as much code as you can, with your exact expectations of what it should do.

Should ViewModel have pass-through DependencyProperties that bind to DependencyProperties on the Model?

I am new to WPF/MVVM and the examples I have found do not seem to cover an issue I am facing.
I have a screen for managing a rather complex business configuration object. In MVVM I think this means I should have the following:
A XAML View with close to zero logic
A ViewModel class that has the screen logic
My usual business classes fill the role of Model and have all business logic
In my situation there are business rules that say changes to fieldA of my business class might have various side effects, for example changing the value of fieldB, or populating an entire list of sub-objects.
I could be wrong, but I think I should keep these rules encapsulated in the business class, as these rules are not really about the screen so much as the entity.
Naturally, these side-effects need to make their way back onto the screen immediately.
So from the user's perspective, he might edit fieldA, and see fieldB updated on the View.
I understand how to databind from the View to the ViewModel.
But in my case, it seems that I need two layers of databinding: one between the View and ViewModel, and another between the ViewModel and the Model.
Given that I have essentially the same problem twice, I think one solution should apply. So I have made my Model class into a DependencyObject, and I have made its properties into DependencyProperties.
Looking at fieldA for example, it would appear in all three layers:
View as a visual component databound to ViewModel.FieldA, for example text="{Binding FieldA, Mode=TwoWay}"
ViewModel as a DependencyProperty bound "upward" to the View, and "downward" to the Model
Model as a DependencyProperty
I prefer not to directly couple my View XAML to the business object by skipping part #2, this does not seem like a clean application of the pattern to me. Perhaps that is misguided.
I essentially seem to need a "pass-through DependencyProperty" in my ViewModel.
My questions:
Is this the right general approach or am I thinking about it all wrong?
Are there examples out there using this pass-through approach?
Can someone give a code example of the proper way to create a pass-through binding between the ViewModel and Model FieldA DependencyProperties?

I struggled with this issue myself, and I imagine it is a very common snag when it comes to MVVM. My answer was to avoid polluting the domain with DependencyObject or INotifyPropertyChanged as it somewhat negates the validity of using a ViewModel.
The goal of a ViewModel is to expose a model in a manner that is relevant to a particular view. It gets confusing when the VM essentially needs to expose an entire domain object. I refer to these as "Editor" view models. These are the most tempting to pass through properties from the domain object. In these cases I give the VM a reference to a domain object (composition) and pass through getters and setters. The ViewModel adopts INotifyPropertyChanged and IDataErrorInfo rather than DependencyProperty to signal the UI if the UI needs to refresh or display validation errors. If the domain raises a validation error, then the VM catches it and prepares it into the data error info details for the view.

I would agree with Steve that you should avoid using DependencyObject and DependencyProperty in your model/domain classes, and the view model classes should adopt INotifyPropertyChanged and IDataErrorInfo for binding purposes.
I would add that in your view model classes, I would avoid using DependencyProperty except for properties that you need to utilize in xaml logic, such as DataTriggers.
For handling changes that are triggered within a model layer class, I would also have a reference to the model/domain object in the view model class, and pass through getters and setters to the model/domain class just as Steve mentioned. I would add that the model/domain class will need to raise an event that the view model class will need to subscribe to, so that OnPropertyChanged() for one or more properties can be called in your view model class based on a change that happened in your business logic.

Firstly, I would not recommend using dependency properties (DP) for view models, or models. DPs are properties that have been designed with UI concepts in mind, such as precedence rules, DataContext support, default values and more. You do not need these concepts within a view models, so you should use INotifyPropertyChanged instead.
Having a view-model that is simply a pass-through to a model layer adds no value at all. So don't do it! You should never add layers, structures or concepts to your code just because you think you should. Simplicity is something that you should always strive for.
So, if you can implement a model layer, with INotifyPropertyChanged simply bind that to your view.
However ... in some cases you may not be able to implement INotifyPropertyChanged in your model. It might be generated from a web service for example. In this case you will need a view model that performs pass-through functionality, but also adds change notification via INotifyPropertyChanged.

MVVM and where to keep displayed fields/properties

I am learning MVVM by building a simple WPF calculator app.
In this simple app, there is one view (Main window), one ViewModel, and one Model (the calculation engine).
My calculator displays the current value of all previous operations, and the operations that got to that value.
For example a display might look like this:
1 * 2 * 3
6
I am wondering if these should be saved as Properties on the ViewModel, Model, or both?
More general -- should the ViewModel contain only properties that exist on the Model, or this is not mandatory?
In this case i would save a CurrentValue and DisplayValue properties, just wondering which architecture layer should these belong to.

In MVVM, ViewModels allow you to shape multiple entities from one or more data models or sources into a single object, optimized for consumption and rendering by the view. The below image illustrates the concept of a ViewModel:
The purpose of a ViewModel is for the view to have a single object to render, alleviating the need for UI logic code in the view that would otherwise be necessary. This means the only responsibility, or concern, of the view is to render that single ViewModel object, aiding in a cleaner separation of concerns (SoC). Concerns are distinct aspects of the application that have a particular purpose (i.e., concern), and keeping these aspects apart means your application is more organized, and the code more focused. Putting data manipulation code in its own location away from the view and controller, enforces SoC.
Using ViewModels in MVNM for finer granularity and better SoC leads to more easily maintainable and testable code. Remember, unit testing is about testing small units.

I am wondering if these should be saved as Properties on the ViewModel, Model, or both?
In my opinion these should be property in ViewModel. Why these should be in the Model too? There is no benefit I can think of having this in Model too. These properties will only make sense to user in View so they should be displayed via ViewModel in the View. Model has nothing to do with it. At most you will have to pass expression 1 * 2 * 3 to Model and get results back, as you mentioned your engine is in Model.
More general -- should the ViewModel contain only properties that exist on the Model, or this is not mandatory?
In general, a ViewModel should contain all the properties that have to be displayed in the View (via ViewModel). Regardless of the fact whether this property exists in Model or not. There is no rule that if this exists in ViwModel it should must be in Model too and vice versa. Generally Model is nothing more than representation of your business entities.

First of all, the model is not the place, where all your logic should be. The model is just the data for the view.
View model should contain any code needed to correctly adapt the model data to WPF display.
In your case you should work on an architecture a bit more.
There should be a class like CalculatorProcessor. View model may have properties for CurrentExpression, that, when a button = is pressed, are passed to a CalculatorProcessor to get processed (calculated) in sequece.
A result is also a property on a view model class that a view's controls are bound to.

ViewModel is specifically created for databinding purposes and as you expected contains properties needed by the view. In my opinion if you need any computed values to be displayed in the view, you can expose them as properties on view model.

A model class is not only a business object, even if the model classes typically provide property and collection change notification events through change notification interfaces, so they can be data bound in the view, you can define an observable collection of instances of a class representing operations that represent he Ui interaction, so when a new op is inserted by the user, you add it to the collection and the UI will automatically reflect it through the binding to an templated listbox (for example)