When the view binds directly to the model (which is also the case when the ViewModel exposes the Model) you are mixing UI code and data code. The goal of MVVM is to separate these two code domains. That's what the ViewModel is for.
The view model has to have it's own properties the view can bind to. An example:
class PersonViewModel
{
private Person OriginalModel { get; set; }
public ValueViewModel<string> Name { get; set; }
public ValueViewModel<int> Postcode { get; set; }
protected void ReadFromModel(Person person)
{
OriginalModel = person;
Name.Value = OriginalModel.Name;
Postcode.Value = OriginalModel.Postcode;
}
protected Person WriteToModel()
{
OriginalModel.Name = Name.Value; //...
return OriginalModel;
}
}
Using such a ViewModel-design really separates your data objects from your user interface code. When the structure of the class Person is changed, the UI doesn't need to be fit accordingly, because the ViewModel separates them from each other.
Now to your question. As you can see in the example above, I used a generic ValueViewModel<T>
. This class implements INotifyPropertyChanged
(and some other stuff). When you receive a new Person
instance, you only have to call ReadFromModel(newPerson)
on your ViewModel to have the UI updated, because the ValueViewModels the View binds to will inform the UI when their value changes.
Here an extremely simplified example of the internal structure of the ValueViewModel
:
class ValueViewModel<T> : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private T _value;
public T Value
{
get { return _value;}
set
{
_value = value;
RaisePropertyChanged("Value");
}
}
}
This is an approach we used in our MVVM library. It has the advantage that it forces the developer to clearly separate code from the designers concerns. And, as a side effect, it generates a standardized code layout in all your Views and ViewModels and thus improves code quality.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…