共用方式為

Some thoughts on the RoutedCommand design

  • 發行項

I think we have
conflated several concepts with RoutedCommands:

1)  The ICommand part with it's Execute/CanExecute methods ...
basically this is just a form of method dispatch that lends itself to
declarative systems
2)  Common Verbs or Actions -- these are what we now call built-in commands

3)  The mapping of basic InputGestures (Ctrl-C) to these Commands, the InputGesture collection on RoutedCommand

To understand this, imagine for the moment that we had a slightly different
design.

First, we define something called Verbs.  A Verb is just
a thing with a name, like "Paste", it almost could be a string, but
type-safety is nice.  In this design we would have
ApplicationVerbs.Paste instead of ApplicationCommands.

PasteCommand.  These could also be called Actions or Intents (and I have another name I'll reveal below).

Second, we define a way to map Verbs to ICommands.

class VerbBinding
{
     public ICommand Command { ... };
     public Verb Verb { .... };
}

Any UIElement could define VerbBindings just like they can CommandBindings and InputBindings today.    

Third, we have ways to map input to Verbs. 

class InputToVerbBinding
{
   public InputGesture InputGesture { ... };
   public Verb Verb { ... };
}

These could be defined "globally" in the input system, or scoped to tree elements.

In this design, the View maps basic input like keystrokes and mouse
and touch gestures (all InputGestures) either to ICommands directly on
the ViewModel or maps them to generic Verbs like Copy and Paste.  Verbs
in turn act like input and route through the visual tree until they
find a Binding that maps them to a ICommand on the ViewModel.  Imagine
we had a VerbBinding which took Verb and an ICommand and called execute
on the ICommand whenever the Verb was handled.  So for example, a menu
might contain Verb="ApplicationVerbs.Paste" and there would also be a
default key binding that would map Ctrl-V to ApplicationVerbs.Paste and
the developer might also decide to map TwoFingerTouch to
ApplicationVerbs.Paste.  Whenever the menu was hit or the Ctrl-V key
was pressed, the PasteVerb would be fired and route just like input
until it was handled by a VerbBinding and directed to the ViewModel.  
(One nuance is that TextBox and other controls may also handle common
Verbs like Paste...but let's set that aside for a moment). 

If you squint at this design, you start to realize that Verbs act
just like InputGestures.  And funnily enough if you look in the input
system you find we already have precedence for taking one input event
and turning it into another one:  we turn Stylus input gestures into
Mouse gestures so that applications that are not specifically
programmed to handle a Stylus will still work.    Similarly, in the
future we will cause dragging a finger across a touch screen fire not
only TouchMove but MouseMove gestures so that apps written before Touch
was supported will still work (with limitations).  So
InputToVerbBinding could just be a way to extend the input system to
map one set of InputGestures to another generically.  More abstractly,
if we introduce a Touch gesture that means Paste, if the system just
adds a global InputToVerbBinding, then any app that handles the Paste
Verb will be future proofed.

Hmmm...does that mean Verbs are just InputGestures?  I mentioned I
had another name for Verb in mind.  How about "AbstractGesture"?
AbstractGesture would just be a peer to KeyGesture and MouseGesture
(lousy name though...VerbGesture?).  If Verbs are InputGestures, then
we no longer need a special VerbBinding, InputBinding is sufficient.  I
also mentioned that there was a nuance that controls need to handle
common Verbs.  Well, controls can handle InputGestures and if Verbs are
a type of InputGesture...so we're done.  Alternatively and more
abstractly, TextBox can be thought of as a ViewModel for a string
property on your model...but I don't blame you if your head starts
spinning now.

In the final design, we get rid of RoutedCommand and add a new
sub-class of InputGesture called Verb.  CommandBinding goes away in
favor of reusing InputBinding.  The InputGesture property of
RoutedCommand is replaced by a new input extensibility that allows us
to map one InputGesture to another.  ApplicationCommands,
EditingCommands etc. become collections of common verbs and their
default mappings from other InputGestures.  I'd probably invent a new
thing like the InputToVerbBinding I mentioned, but I don't have a good
name for it.

Feedback appreciated.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    November 01, 2008
    PingBack from http://mstechnews.info/2008/11/some-thoughts-on-the-routedcommand-design/

  • Anonymous
    November 02, 2008
    John, can you provide some mocked up code and talk in more detail about what types of problems this would solve - aside from mapping of multiple gestures to a "concept."

  • Anonymous
    November 02, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 02, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 13, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 13, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 14, 2008
    @Neil @Whilst RoutedCommand uses inheritance to solve this, verbs would use composition to do it meaning you could get the routing of commands with any ICommand implementation. Using composition still doesn't solve the underlying problem that the design is non-OO. Composition (through interfaces) doesn't equal OO.  What composition gives you is resiliency to bugs resulting from "fragile base classes", or, as recent research points out, fragile middle classes.  In a nutshell, good use of composition frees you from making assumptions about implementation details.  However, good use of composition can be done with structured programming and functional programming. It's delegation that is missing, in many places, from WPF.  Examples include navigation and controltemplates.  Without delegation, WPF apps still feel very much like VB6.  RoutedCommands actually map directly to the VB6 way to do things: Frame/Controller paradigm, where the controller ends up knowing too much.

  • Anonymous
    November 14, 2008
    Sounds interesting. A number people have been critical of RoutedCommands as they are implemented. You may want to check out the Composite Command concept over in the Prism project http://hirentechie.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/microsoft-prism-composite-wpf/ and http://www.sitechno.com/Blog/SpikesWithPrismCouplingCommandsToViews.aspx