Oh right, as in, casting DataContext to the respective VM and invoking it with respective params?
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Miguel Madero <[email protected]> wrote: > I rarely have to pass parameters. The CallMethodAction doesn't have this > option. I prefer parameterless methods and databind to properties to give my > VMs the extra context. In cases where this isn't possible I do it from code > behind. I guess it would be really simple to write a CallMethodAction that > takes a parameter or parameter list if you need this functionality. Since > this isn't a common task for me, it has been simpler to write an event > handler and directly call the method. > > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Winston Pang <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Nice, that's interesting, never seen that one, I hate having to declare >> ICommand's it's such a hassle just to wire something up. >> >> How do you pass args/params with CallMethodAction >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Miguel Madero <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> BTW I love the CallMethodAction in Blend so I don't have to define >>> Command in my ViewModels. It feels more POCOish. Just a public method. If I >>> need the IsEnabled I just add a property and bind it to either IsEnabled or >>> Visibility. >>> <rant> >>> Commands are just too messy and feels like leaking view concerns into my >>> VMs. Just for the same reason I don't expose properties of type Visibility, >>> I don't like exposing ICommand. >>> Setting purity aside, it's just too much work, create another property >>> that delegates on your method, initialise it in the constructor, then find >>> ways to actually be able to call that from code... naaa. That's just >>> messy. >>> </rant> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Miguel Madero <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for Blend Triggers and Actions >>>> +1 for Code Behind for uncommon scenarios as a second option. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Paul Stovell >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is an Expression Blend trigger action that can invoke a command >>>>> IIRC. That’s probably the easiest way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Caliburn also has a nice approach of mapping an event to a ViewModel >>>>> method via an attached property – something like <Button >>>>> cal:Message.Attach=’[Event MouseOver] = DoSomething()’ /> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personally, if there’s no command out of the box and it’s not a common >>>>> scenario, I’m quite happy to write a plain old event handler and invoke >>>>> the >>>>> method on the VM manually. There’s nothing wrong with a little code >>>>> behind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>>>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Greg Keogh >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 November 2010 2:31 PM >>>>> *To:* 'ozWPF' >>>>> *Subject:* Events to command binding >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some have scoffed when I expressed dismay at the artifice that creates >>>>> binding. I’ve just discovered that I’m wasting hours of time converting >>>>> events into commands. For example, iIt took me an hour to find a piece of >>>>> sample code that converted KeyDown on TreeView nodes to a binding (found >>>>> HERE<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/612966/keyboard-events-in-a-wpf-mvvm-application>), >>>>> but it needed delicate merging with existing ICommand processing classes I >>>>> use. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I estimate that 50% of the time I spend writing WPF apps is wasted >>>>> trying to follow MVVM and bind the control XAML to my controller class. It >>>>> seems that every other man and his dog who is trying to follow the MVVM >>>>> pattern as well has created untold amounts of confusing and conflicting >>>>> code >>>>> for the purpose. I’m sick of searching for and finding jumbles of code >>>>> that >>>>> I have to tidy up and include in my projects. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I feel compelled to write a small infrastructure that allows >>>>> event-to-command binding in a generalised way, but I’ll bet it’s been done >>>>> already (multiple times and in multiple ways). Has anyone got any >>>>> suggestions or comments on this? Surely I’m not the first person in the >>>>> world to have stumbled across these hurdles. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> MVVM would be wonderful if all of the wiring was just built-in. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Greg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> ozwpf mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Miguel A. Madero Reyes >>>> www.miguelmadero.com (blog) >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Miguel A. Madero Reyes >>> www.miguelmadero.com (blog) >>> [email protected] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ozwpf mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ozwpf mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf >> >> > > > -- > Miguel A. Madero Reyes > www.miguelmadero.com (blog) > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > ozwpf mailing list > [email protected] > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf > >
_______________________________________________ ozwpf mailing list [email protected] http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf
