WPFGlue Categories

I’d like to classify WPFGlue components according to what they do in the application. So far, the following categories came out:


The WPF navigation framework is just great. Especially the journal: you get the complete forwards and backwards navigation for free, the journal remembers the user input on the page, and this works even when pages are freed in order to save memory.

However, WPF navigation stops just short of being really sticky. Selecting an object on one page and passing it forward to another page is supposed to be done through code behind, and the journal serializes objects instead of hold references to them, which is in itself a wise thing to do in order to not keep these objects from being freed, but makes it difficult to return to the same object instance if one goes back to a page. Also, I don’t like the suggestion in the WPF documentation that the navigation topology should be defined through pages referencing each other through hyperlinks. In my opinion, the pages should work stand-alone as much as possible, and there should be a central definition for the navigation topology, defining the structure of the application and mapping pages to the appropriate places in the object model.

WPFGlue supports navigation through a sticky GoToPage CommandBinding which takes an object parameter and passes it to the DataContext of the new page, a sticky Session property which can hold WeakReferences to business objects while the journal stores pointers to these references, and a ViewModelKit for defining a navigation menu.


The need for localization is immediately obvious for every programmer whose mother tongue is not English. Surprisingly, in WPF localization seems to have been added more or less as an afterthought. While Visual Studio supports localization very nicely for Windows Forms applications, getting at resources contained in satellite assemblies is not straight forward in WPF, and even something as basic as detecting the system language and making it the default culture for display and formatting in the application requires extra work. I could imagine that in the beginning the creators of WPF thought that people would just write different XAML pages for different languages, as is done in HTML, and that the need for localizing XAML only arose after the power of XAML as a programming language became more apparent, and programming elements became more predominant on XAML pages than clear text.

In the Localization category, WPFGlue comes with some sticky MarkupExtensions which make it easier to localize an application. These MarkupExtensions get their values from standard .Net localized resources, so no need for LocBAML or third party tools there. Other MarkupExtensions can be used to set WPF elements’ Language property to the CurrentCulture or CurrentUICulture.


The commanding support in WPF is ingenious. It allows to implement some functionality once and to attach it to all the places where it is applicable, through RoutedCommands and CommandBindings. At the same time, commands decouple the traditional menu and toolbar from the application’s object model, making for great reusable code. Fabulously sticky stuff!

Commands are also the way ViewModels in the MVVM pattern expose their functionality to the user interface. The only unsticky thing about them is that CommandBindings support adding handler routines only through code, either code behind or explicitly. Also, there is no native general way of wrapping a method call into a command.

In the Commanding category, WPFGlue should support mapping commands to method calls, and also direct commands (ICommand implementations that are exposed by a ViewModel) to routed commands which can be handled centrally. There should be a way to set up a CommandSet and to connect it to a page, thus being able to define the available commands and their handlers in a central location. Also, the Commanding category contains a CommandGroup, which executes a series of commands in one go.


MVVM developers seem to avoid the validation features of WPF in favour of validation through the ViewModel or business model, exposed through the IDataErrorInfo interface. I don’t really understand why.

First of all, providing error messages to a user is not the job of a business object. The business object shouldn’t know whether it is used by an interactive user, a background service, or a batch job. In addition to that, in order to be able to provide meaningful error messages, the business object model would have to localize its error messages, and I wouldn’t want to burden my business objects with a job like that.

Second, while the business model knows what itself can do, it has no idea about what the developer of an application that reuses it may want to do. It would be perfectly justified to forbid certain legal property values because they are outside the scope of the current application. In this case, the ViewModel would have to constrain the values it allows for a certain property before it passes them on to the business object model.

So why not let the ViewModel do the job? I agree, the ViewModel is responsible. However, I wouldn’t use IDataErrorInfo, because that forces me to re-implement a lot of functionality that is already present in the WPF validation model. For example, resetting the values of an object to their pre-edit state before they are committed while still being able to provide instant validation feedback is really easy with ValidationRules and a BindingGroup, but requires a lot of effort, including ongoing maintenance effort, when done in a ViewModel specialized for a certain business model.

So, what I’d do instead is create a ViewModelKit that allows one to define a group of ValidationRules, which may or may not be dependent on validation functions in the business object model, and to allow setting these ValidationRules to a BindingGroup using a sticky property.

In addition to that, one would find workarounds for some minor problems with Validation.ErrorTemplate and ways to inform the ViewModel of validation results in the Validation category of WPFGlue.

Application Services

Application services would be things like forwarding application lifetime events to the ViewModel or providing services that are available in the operating system environment without creating a dependency from the ViewModel to the View.

Examples for this are a MessageBox that is invoked through sticky properties, a sticky StartupCommand property, a markup extension that allows to include application settings in the user interface, or context sensitive help through sticky properties.

Common Tasks

Common tasks would be jobs that recur in user interfaces, so that it makes sense to implement them in sticky ViewModels.

Examples would be a FileManager that provides support for the usual File menu commands for any type of document, a ListEditor that has commands for moving, adding and deleting items in collections implementing the standard collection interfaces, a ListPager that divides a collection into pages of a given length, and the like.


This is only a tentative list. The only category that will definitely survive is Common Tasks, since the others hopefully will be replaced by native support through WPF as the framework develops and the gaps between business object model and user interface vanish, so that there is no more need to fill them with glue.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: