I would like to know how to pass two or more parameters to Prism event aggregator (event class inherits CompositePresentationEvent)?
I know I can create wrapper class like EventArgs and create property for each value I need, but I would rather to pass two distinct parameters.
Is this possible?
Unfortunately, the event aggregator is only set up to pass a single parameter. HOWEVER, that parameter can be a class or structure.
Here is an example of a "message" I pass with event aggregator, including a callback parameter.
public class OpenViewPayload
{
public string ViewName;
public object Context;
public Action callback;
}
[Export]
[PartCreationPolicy(CreationPolicy.Shared)]
public class OpenViewEvent : CompositePresentationEvent<OpenViewPayload>
{
}
Usage:
_eventAggregator.GetEvent<OpenViewEvent>().Publish(new OpenViewPayload() { ViewName = "CustomerView", Context = _selectedCustomerID, callback= ()=> { /* Close Current View */ } });
Related
I am currently trying to make a console for my game, and decided making a class called Command which can then be used to create commands easily was a good idea. I made the class but of course these classes are going to do vastly different thing, as such I was thinking of making a property which would basically act like a function, aka I could construct a command with properties commandName, arguments and then the customizable code block which would then be executed upon writing the command. How would I go about this?
public class Command : MonoBehaviour
{
string inputCommand;
int arguments;
void execution()
{
//this is where to codeblock to be executed upon typing the command would go
}
}
Edit:
I made what seems to be progress but still can't seem to get it right. Also each action needs to be able to have different amounts of arguments (for example "runes.add" needs an integer for runes to add and "updatestore" needs none). Any help would be greatly appreciated
public class Command : MonoBehaviour
{
public string InputCommand { get; set; }
public int Arguments { get; set; }
public Action ExecuteAction { get; set; }
}
public class Commands
{
public List<Command> commandCollection = new List<Command>()
{
new Command()
{
InputCommand = "",
Arguments = 1,
ExecuteAction = new Action(()=>{code to execute goes here})
}
};
}
First of all, you shouldn't derive Command from MonoBehaviour if you want to construct Command with object constructor (not Instantiate).
I think you should make abstract Command class and create commands as classes derived from Command class.
Also what you call "code block" can be done using polymorphism.
So, what you need to do:
Create Command class
public abstract class Command
{
public abstract void Execute(string[] args);
}
Execute method is abstract so we can override realisation of this method in subclasses. This methods takes an array of command arguments as the parameter.
Create some test commands
public class TestCommand : Command
{
public override void Execute(string[] args)
{
Debug.Log("Test command invoked, passed parameters count: " + args.Length);
}
}
Create CommandRegistry class (it's your Commands class)
public class CommandRegistry
{
private Dictionary<string, Command> _commands;
public CommandRegistry()
{
_commands = new Dictionary<string, Command>();
}
public void RegisterCommand(string name, Command command)
{
// You should also check here if command already exists
if(_commands.ContainsKey(name))
{
// Print error here or throw an exception
return;
}
_commands[name] = command;
}
public void RegisterAllCommands()
{
// Add here every new command to register it
RegisterCommand("test", new TestCommand());
}
// Returns false if command not found
public bool ExecuteCommand(string commandName, string[] args)
{
if(_commands.ContainsKey(commandName) == false)
return false;
_commands[commandName].Execute(args);
return true;
}
}
That's it. You need to call ExecuteCommand method to execute a command and pass a name and arguments of the command.
You should check argument count inside a Command.Execute method.
Also if you need to access your game methods/fields (for example to add runes) you should provide static access to this fields/methods or create something like CommandContext class (or GameContext).
An instance of this class will be passed to every command and it contains references to objects that can do things like adding runes.
Then you will need to add a new parameter (CommandContext) to GameRegistry.ExecuteCommand and Command.Execute method.
I've implemented the command pattern (in a multi-support way) in my application.
Structure:
class MultiCommand : BaseCommand
abstract class BaseCommand : ICommand
Process Flow:
var commandsGroup = new MultiCommand(new List<ICommand>()
{
new Command1(),
new Command2(),
new Command3(),
});
commandsGroup.Execute()
Now, suppose that in Command1 a somethingID is changed and I'll use this new value in Command2... And also, that there are plenty of other properties and objects that are being affected during the whole execution process.
Also, there are some interface implementations that should be available at any command just using the context object like:
Context.ServerController.something();
The instantiation of the IServerController will take place just before the multiCommandGroup initialization.
How can I have a shared context like this for all Commands of the group?
Example of the Context class:
public class CommandContext
{
public IServerController ServerController;
public RequiredData Data { get; set; }
public CommandContext(){}
}
IMPORTANT
A minimal implementation Code is here
1) If you want to keep this interface, then you have to pass this context as constructor parameter:
new MultiCommand(new List<ICommand>()
{
new Command1(context),
new Command2(context),
new Command3(context),
})
2) As another option you can accept list of delegates instead of list of commands.
MultiCommand will be look like this:
class MultiCommand : ICommand
{
public MultiCommand(List<Func<Context, Command>> commands, Context context)
}
That is almost the same except MultiCommand is responsible for all the commands share the same context.
3) Looks like commands in MultiCommand depends on result of previous command. In this case Command pattern is not probably the best. Maybe you should try to implement Middleware chain here?
interface IMiddleware<TContext>
{
void Run(TContext context);
}
class Chain<TContext>
{
private List<IMiddleware<TContext>> handlers;
void Register(IMiddleware<TContext> m);
public void Run(TContext context)
{
handlers.ForEach(h => h.Run(context));
}
}
I would suggest to make somethings generic. Here is a super simple example.
class MultiCommand<TContext>
{
List<Command<TContext>> Commands;
TContext Context;
}
You could have a constructor on your BaseCommand class (and its derived classes) that would accept a Context class of some kind. When instantiating the commands that will belong to the same group, you could provide them all the same context object. Maybe something like:
public class CommandContext
{
// The object that will be the target of the commands' actions.
public object Data { get; set; }
// ... any other properties that might be useful as shared state between commands...
}
public abstract class BaseCommand : ICommand
{
protected CommandContext Context { get; private set; }
public BaseCommand(CommandContext ctx)
{
Context = ctx;
}
}
public class ChangeSomethingIDCommand : BaseCommand
{
public ChangeSomethingIDCommand(CommandContext ctx) : base(ctx)
{ }
public void Execute()
{
var target = (SomeDomainClass)Context.Data;
target.SomethingID++;
}
}
// Elsewhere in your code (assuming 'myTargetDomainClassInstance' is
// a SomeDomainClass instance that has been instantiated elsewhere and
// represents the object upon which the commands will do work):
var ctx = new CommandContext { Data = myTargetDomainClassInstance };
var commandGroup = new MultiItemCommand(ctx, new List<ICommand>
{
new ChangeSomethingIDCommand(ctx),
new Command2(ctx),
new Command3(ctx)
});
commandGroup.Execute();
Consider a Functional Style
public class SomeMainClass{
public void MultiCommandInit()
{
MultiCommand.New()
.Add(new Command1())
.Add(new Command2())
.Add(new Command3())
.SharedContext(CC => {
CC.Data = new RequiredData();
CC.ServerController = GetServerController();
});
}
private IServerController GetServerController()
{
// return proper instance of server controller
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
Requires this extension method / function...
public static class XMultiCommand
{
// How can I have a shared context like this for all Commands of the group?
public static MultiCommand SharedContext(this MultiCommand mc, Action<CommandContext> CallBack)
{
var cc = new CommandContext();
CallBack(cc);
mc.SharedContext = cc;
return mc;
}
}
Finally, these changes to MultiCommand
public class MultiCommand
{
private System.Collections.Generic.List<ICommand> list;
public List<ICommand> Commands { get { return list; } }
public CommandContext SharedContext { get; set; }
public MultiCommand() { }
public MultiCommand(System.Collections.Generic.List<ICommand> list)
{
this.list = list;
}
public MultiCommand Add(ICommand cc)
{
list.Add(cc);
return this;
}
internal void Execute()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public static MultiCommand New()
{
return new MultiCommand();
}
}
Cool Things Happen Using Functional Styles
Re-usability soars!
Hyper focus on Single Responsibility concerns
Composition becomes the Norm
Code Maintenance becomes simple
Intellisense becomes your built-in API (just use code commenting)
No radical OOP design patterns are needed
Fluent code becomes very enjoyable to work with
Nested / Decorated Functions are much more easy to imagine and implement
You will never repeat youerself
The Open/Closed principal becomes your religion
Code is now always Clear, Complete and Concise
Some even say no interfaces are needed any longer
In your case, going with injecting context through constructor is fine as mentioned by others. But in general, I would go with injecting the context through method parameters instead:
public class Command1: BaseCommand
{
//inject as parameter instead
public void Execute(Context ctx)
{
}
}
The reasons are:
The context should be managed by CommandGroup so that we have better encapsulation.
The CommandGroup is responsible for executing its list of commands so that it's possible for the CommandGroup to pass to each Command only the parameters each Command really needs, these parameters may be constructed at runtime (maybe by previous Commands) so that it's not possible to pass in these objects as the time we construct the list of commands. Therefore, it's easier to reuse Command and also simplify unit testing these Commands as we don't need to construct the whole context object in unit tests.
Maybe you don't need to care about these things at the moment, but method injection gives more flexibility. If you have worked with some frameworks in .NET, you would see something similar like OwinContext, FilterContext,.. they are passed as parameters and contain relevant information for that context.
In my opinion, your case is not a good fit for Command pattern. A Command represents a user request (action) and these objects could be created dynamically at runtime, but you're predefining your Commands at coding time.
What you're trying to do looks like owin middleware or asp.net web api message handler which are http://www.dofactory.com/net/chain-of-responsibility-design-pattern
And what about changing your approach? I did an architecture for DDD recently and executing a commad implies atomic operation (retrieve aggregate root from persitence, apply domain rules and pesist the aggregate) so I do not in needed of a share context and can batch multiple commands whithout worries.
Here you have an cqrs architecture that use command pattern with the above strategy I posted.
My 0.02:
1) The MultiCommand class looks like a Composite pattern.
You may want to add a GetParentCommand() method at the base command class and add an AddChildCommand() method at the MultiCommand class, which set every children's parent.
Then the children commands could get the context object from its parent. (Context object should also be defined in base class. And it may be of generic type.)
edit:
abstract class BaseCommand<T> : ICommand
{
public T Context { get; set; }
public BaseCommand Parent { get; set; }
}
class MultiCommand : BaseCommand
{
public void AddChildCommand(BaseCommand command)
{
command.parent = this; // we can get parent's context from children now
// put the command in an internal list
}
}
var commandsGroup = new MultiCommand();
commandsGroup.AddChildCommand(new Command1());
commandsGroup.AddChildCommand(new Command2());
commandsGroup.AddChildCommand(new Command3());
commandsGroup.Execute()
2) We may create a global singleton context object. In MultiCommand's Execute function, we could set the current context object before executing children's Execute function. Then child command could just access the singleton context object. And after all children's execution, the MultiCommand could reset the context. (The context is actually a stack here.)
edit:
abstract class BaseCommand : ICommand
{
// it could be put anywhere else as long as it can be accessed in command's Execute
// it can also be a stack
public static CommandContext Context {get; set;}
}
class MutliCommand : BaseCommand
{
public void Execute()
{
// do something to BaseCommand.Context
ChildCommand.Execute();
// do something to BaseCommand.Context
}
}
class ChildComand: BaseCommand
{
void Execute()
{
// do something with BaseCommand.Context
}
}
Another option is to put the context object as a parameter of the Execute function:
class MultiCommand : BaseCommand
{
void Execute(CommandContext context)
{
Children.Execute(context);
}
}
Probably I'm searching for some wrong Keyword, but I couldn't find anything on this matter: I'm tinkering around with WPF MVVM and I'm now at the Point, I'm looking for a solution to give a ViewModel the possibility to request the Container to change to anhother ViewModel.
My approach is to pass a Callback to the created ViewModel, which is held on the Abstract BaseClass and can called, if desired. The method in the Container looks like this:
private void ApplyViewModel<T>()
where T : ViewModelBase
{
_exHandler.HandledAction(
() =>
{
var vm = _viewModelFactory.CreateViewModel<T>();
vm.ApplyViewModel = ApplyViewModel<T>;
CurrentContent = vm;
});
}
The interesting point is the second Line, where I pass the Method itself to the ViewModel.
For this matter, I created also a Delegate:
public delegate void ApplyViewModelDelegate<T>()
where T : ViewModelBase;
The problem lies now in the definition of the Callback in the ViewModelBase: It seems not possible to define it as an open generic Delegate. So I would like to create a Property with the following Signature:
public ApplyViewModelDelegate<T> ApplyViewModel { get; set; }
Is there kindahow a possibility to pass a Delegate as open generic Type, until I'd really like to call it with a specific Type?
Edit:
If I define the Property like this:
public ApplyViewModelDelegate<ViewModelBase> SwitchToViewModel { get; set; }
I can assign the Property from the Container, but my final idea would be to call this Property to target a specific ViewModel. For example, a Command could look like this:
public ViewModelCommand ToTest2
{
get
{
return new ViewModelCommand(
"To Test2",
new ActionCommand(() =>
{
SwitchToViewModel<Test2ViewModel>();
}));
}
}
I have created a test project as a POC for this problem.
I have a WPF app, that when we use interceptors around the view models, it's stopping the propagation of events. If I disable all interceptors, it works fine.
Here is the code:
MyInterceptor.cs
public class MyInterceptor : IInterceptor
{
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
invocation.Proceed();
}
}
IoCTestViewModel.cs
public interface IIoCTestViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
int Number { get; }
}
public class IoCTestViewModel : IIoCTestViewModel
{
public IoCTestViewModel()
{
var timer = new Timer(200);
timer.Elapsed += (a, b) => {
if(PropertyChanged != null)
{
PropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs("Number"));
}
};
timer.Start();
}
public int Number
{
get
{
return new Random().Next(1, 100);
}
}
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
}
IoCTest.xaml.cs
public partial class IoCTest : UserControl
{
public IIoCTestViewModel ViewModel { get; set; }
public IoCTest(IIoCTestViewModel viewModel)
{
InitializeComponent();
DataContext = viewModel;
}
}
App.xaml (fragment)
Container = new WindsorContainer();
Container.Register(Component.For<MyInterceptor>().ImplementedBy<MyInterceptor>());
Container.Register(Component.For<IIoCTestViewModel>().ImplementedBy<IoCTestViewModel>().Interceptors<MyInterceptor>());
Container.Register(Component.For<IoCPage>().ImplementedBy<IoCTest>()); //IoCTest is a usercontrol
OK. So once I get an instance of IoCTest and add it to a page, I don't see any changes, even though I am sending PropertyChanged every 200ms. If I remove the interceptor, everything works fine.
So how do I fix this?
The issue here is that because you declare your service to be IIoCTestViewModel, when you add an interceptor Windsor simply creates a dynamic proxy that delegates all calls to your implementation type. However, the interception is done using composition - one object delegating to another. Hence, when you raise your property changed event with a sender of this, it is a different object to the one that WPF thinks it is watching.
You should instead register your view model like this:
Container.Register(Component.For<IIoCTestViewModel,IoCTestViewModel>().ImplementedBy<IoCTestViewModel>().Interceptors<MyInterceptor>())
By specifying multiple services, one of which is actually your implementation class, Windsor will instead generate a class proxy - i.e. the interception will be done using inheritance, with the generated proxy inheriting from IoCTestViewModel. (This is known as type forwarding in Windsor). Now when you raise your event with a sender of this it correctly refers to the same instance that WPF is watching.
See here for a more detailed explanation of type forwarding and its implications for proxies
I am working on an LOB application in C# using a WinForms tabbed MDI interface. I have various forms with DataGridViews to allow the user to select an object they are interested in, which they can then view/edit in a new form.
Each of my main business objects inherit from Entity, which is defined as below:
public abstract class Entity
{
public static event Action Saved;
internal virtual void OnSaved()
{
if (Saved != null)
{
Saved();
}
}
}
I then have the objects that populate the grid (these are actually auto-generated classes from Linq-to-SQL, although I can replicate the problem with normal classes):
class Class1 : Entity
{
//Stuff
}
class Class2 : Entity
{
//Stuff
}
I want to know when an object of a given class is modified, but i don't care which instance (hence the static action) so that i can refresh the grid and perform other activities.
The problem comes when the event is fired from a derived class instance - it fires for all other derived classes too. For example:
Class1.Saved += new Action(s1);
Class2.Saved += new Action(s2);
private void TestIt()
{
Class2 o2 = new Class2();
o2.OnSaved();
}
This would fire s1 and s2, but I only want the specific one to be fired (i.e. s2). What is the best way to do this? I have quite a few classes that need this behviour and would like to avoid having to add any code to each class if possible.
Update:
Thank you for all your responses, they have been very helpful.
I have opted for a slightly different option, which I admit seems quite hacky, but works well for my purposes. This involves passing the type with the action and letting a handler filter and call relevant operations.
Entity Class:
public abstract class Entity
{
public static event Action<Type> Saved;
internal void OnSaved()
{
private Action<Type> SavedCopy = Saved;
if (SavedCopy != null)
SavedCopy(this.GetType());
}
}
Hook up handler:
Entity.Saved += new Action<Type>(Handler);
Example Handler method (this will vary from form to form):
void Handler(Type obj)
{
if (obj==typeof(Class1))
UpdateGrid();
else if (obj==typeof(Class2))
UpdateBasicInfo();
else if (obj == typeof(Class3))
DoAnotherThing();
}
Using generics could be a work around; each generic class gets a copy of the static fields.
public abstract class Entity<T>
{
public static event Action Saved = delegate { };
internal virtual void OnSaved()
{
Saved();
}
}
class Class1 : Entity<Class1>
{
//Stuff
}
class Class2 : Entity<Class2>
{
//Stuff
}
I'm not sure doing it like this is a good idea, but you could specify the type when you subscribe and when you save the data:
public abstract class Entity
{
private static Dictionary<Type, Action> Subscribers
= new Dictionary<Type, Action>();
internal virtual void OnSaved()
{
OnSaved(GetType());
}
private OnSaved(Type type)
{
Action subscribed;
Subscribers.TryGetValue(type, out subscribed);
if (subscribed != null)
subscribed();
}
public Subscribe(Type type, Action action)
{
Action subscribed;
Subscribers.TryGetValue(type, out subscribed);
Subscribers[type] = subscribed + action;
}
public Unsubscribe(Type type, Action action)
{
Action subscribed;
Subscribers.TryGetValue(type, out subscribed);
Subscribers[type] = subscribed - action;
}
}
Keep in mind that this code is not thread-safe, so if you want to use it from different threads at the same time, you need to add locking.
You will need to have an event per type, because can't determine for which type the delegate is registered when the event is defined on the base type.
public abstract class Entity
{
internal abstract void OnSaved();
}
class Class1 : Entity
{
public static event Action Saved = () => { };
internal override void OnSaved()
{
this.Saved();
}
//Stuff
}
class Class2 : Entity
{
public static event Action Saved = () => { };
internal override void OnSaved()
{
this.Saved();
}
//Stuff
}
Why does it have to be static? Make it an instance event instead.
public event Action Saved;
You have to hook it up for each instance instead of just once per class (or, in your current case, once), but it will separate the events.