Binding a ReactiveCommand prevents a ViewModel from being garbage collected - garbage-collection

When I bind a "back button" to a the router in ReactiveUI, my ViewModel is no longer garbage collected (my view too). Is this a bug, or is this me doing something dumb?
Here is my MeetingPageViewModel:
public class MeetingPageViewModel : ReactiveObject, IRoutableViewModel
{
public MeetingPageViewModel(IScreen hs, IMeetingRef mRef)
{
HostScreen = hs;
}
public IScreen HostScreen { get; private set; }
public string UrlPathSegment
{
get { return "/meeting"; }
}
}
Here is my MeetingPage.xaml.cs file:
public sealed partial class MeetingPage : Page, IViewFor<MeetingPageViewModel>
{
public MeetingPage()
{
this.InitializeComponent();
// ** Comment this out and both the View and VM will get garbage collected.
this.BindCommand(ViewModel, x => x.HostScreen.Router.NavigateBack, y => y.backButton);
// Test that goes back right away to make sure the Execute
// wasn't what was causing the problem.
this.Loaded += (s, a) => ViewModel.HostScreen.Router.NavigateBack.Execute(null);
}
public MeetingPageViewModel ViewModel
{
get { return (MeetingPageViewModel)GetValue(ViewModelProperty); }
set { SetValue(ViewModelProperty, value); }
}
public static readonly DependencyProperty ViewModelProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register("ViewModel", typeof(MeetingPageViewModel), typeof(MeetingPage), new PropertyMetadata(null));
object IViewFor.ViewModel
{
get { return ViewModel; }
set { ViewModel = (MeetingPageViewModel)value; }
}
}
I then run, and to see what is up, I use VS 2013 Pro, and turn on the memory analyzer. I also (as a test) put in forced GC collection of all generations and a wait for finalizers. When that line is uncommented above, when all is done, there are three instances of MeetingPage and MeetingPageViewModel. If I remove the BindCommand line, there are no instances.
I was under the impression that these would go away on their own. Is the problem the HostScreen object or the Router that refers to an object that lives longer than this VM? And that pins things down?
If so, what is the recommended away of hooking up the back button? Using Splat and DI? Many thanks!

Following up on the idea I had at the end, I can solve this in the following way. In my App.xaml.cs, I make sure to declare the RoutingState to the dependency injector:
var r = new RoutingState();
Locator.CurrentMutable.RegisterConstant(r, typeof(RoutingState));
then, in the ctor of each view (the .xaml.cs code) with a back button for my Windows Store app, I no longer use the code above, but replace it with:
var router = Locator.Current.GetService<RoutingState>();
backButton.Click += (s, args) => router.NavigateBack.Execute(null);
After doing that I can visit the page as many times as I want and never do I see the instances remaining in the analyzer.
I'll wait to mark this as an answer to give real experts some time to suggest another (better?) approach.

Related

Cross-thread issue not resolved despite the usage of Invoke()

My C# app has lots of forms to perform various tasks. To keep things simple, I have a static class FormsCollection where the instances of each of the other forms are kept, so that they are shown and hidden from one place.
Now i was getting that classic debug time "Cross-thread" error. I tried to fix it the following way:
public class FormsCollection : Control // inherited from Control only to be
// able to call "this.Invoke"
{
public delegate void ShowFormDelegate(Form form);
public static Main mainForm;
// and many other forms...
public void ShowForm(Form form)
{
if (form.InvokeRequired)
{
ShowFormDelegate delegateFunc = new ShowFormDelegate(ShowForm);
this.Invoke(delegateFunc, new object[] { form });
}
else
{
previousForm = currentForm;
currentForm.Hide();
currentForm = form;
currentForm.Show();
}
}
}
Inside the user/caller forms, i simply make an object of FormsCollection and call the ShowForm method (almost a 100 such calls):
FormsCollection f = new FormsCollection();
f.ShowForm(FormsCollection.mainForm);
And after all this ordeal, what i get is that the same error appears at the very same spot as before! What an irony! :)
What am i doing wrong? Please help me out....
I got extremely hard-to-find answer to this problem from this slightly irrelevant page. Following is the updated code for any struggling programmers looking for a work around to this problem:
public void Show(Form nextForm)
{
Thread thread = new Thread(
new ThreadStart(() =>
{
PreviousForm.BeginInvoke(
new Action(() =>
{
PreviousForm = CurrentForm;
CurrentForm = nextForm;
PreviousForm.Hide();
CurrentForm.Show();
}
));
}
));
thread.Start();
}
This seems to have resolved the cross-thread problem that i was facing despite several work-arounds. It is working as yet without raising any exceptions and I have tested almost all the scenarios of my app going back and forth from form to form.

Allow only one user to access a page at a time in struts application

Having an huge customers profile page if two or more users start using same page and start editing big change will happen in my database so planing to implement Threads concept where only one user can use that customer page
i'm aware about threads concept but confused how to implement it
hope i need to use Singleton class as well
Any suggestion or Logic's will be helpful
I'm using Struts,Hibernate frame work
You may use application context to store a flag variable. Action will use its value to allow only one simultaneous execution.
public class TestAction extends ActionSupport implements ApplicationAware {
private static final String APP_BUSY_KEY = "APP_BUSY";
Map<String, Object> map;
#Override
public void setApplication(Map<String, Object> map) {
this.map = map;
}
#Override
public String execute() throws Exception {
if (map.containsKey(APP_BUSY_KEY)) {
return ERROR;
} else {
map.put(APP_BUSY_KEY, "1");
try {
// action logic here
} finally {
map.remove(APP_BUSY_KEY);
}
return SUCCESS;
}
}
}
If you plan to implement similar logic for two requests (lock after displaying values and release lock after submitting new values) then logic will be more complex and you will also need to handle lock release after timeout.

Unity3D : Retry Menu (Scene Management)

I'm making a simple 2D game for Android using the Unity3D game engine. I created all the levels and everything but I'm stuck at making the game over/retry menu. So far I've been using new scenes as a game over menu. I used this simple script:
#pragma strict
var level = Application.LoadLevel;
function OnCollisionEnter(Collision : Collision)
{
if(Collision.collider.tag == "Player")
{
Application.LoadLevel("GameOver");
}
}
And this as a 'menu':
#pragma strict
var myGUISkin : GUISkin;
var btnTexture : Texture;
function OnGUI() {
GUI.skin = myGUISkin;
if (GUI.Button(Rect(Screen.width/2-60,Screen.height/2+30,100,40),"Retry"))
Application.LoadLevel("Easy1");
if (GUI.Button(Rect(Screen.width/2-90,Screen.height/2+100,170,40),"Main Menu"))
Application.LoadLevel("MainMenu");
}
The problem stands at the part where I have to create over 200 game over scenes, obstacles (the objects that kill the player) and recreate the same script over 200 times for each level. Is there any other way to make this faster and less painful?
Edit : If possible,please when you suggest your ideas,use javascript only,I don't understand C#,not even a little bit.I know Im asking too much but it realy confuses me.
Thank you.
There are several different solutions, but I would recommend using PlayerPrefs. This has the extra benefit of persisting even when the application is closed and then re-opened.
In your Awake() function of your Main Menu class, you can get the current level and store it in a static string of your Main Menu class. If it is the player's 1st time, use the name for level 1.
Something like this:
static string currentLevelName;
void Awake()
{
currentLevelName = PlayerPrefs.GetString("CurrentLevel");
if (currentLevelName == defaultValue)
{
currentLevelName = "Level1"
}
}
Then, modify your button to do this instead:
if (GUI.Button(Rect(Screen.width/2-60,Screen.height/2+30,100,40),"Retry"))
Application.LoadLevel(currentLevelName);
Whenever the player advances to the next level, set the string in PlayerPrefs to the new level name:
PlayerPrefs.SetString("CurrentLevel", Application.loadedLevelName);
You can create a class with static properties. For example (in c#)
public class GameOverInput
{
public static string name;
public static string retryLevel;
//all the info you need
}
Then you can easily read the input in your game over scene (only one is needed)
public class GameOverMenu : MonoBehavior
{
void Start()
{
Debug.Log("You were killed by " + GameOverInput.name);
Application.LoadLevel(GameOverInput.retryLevel);
}
}
And you set this info just before loading the game over scene
if (Collision.collider.tag == "Player")
{
GameOverInput.name = "Baddie";
Application.LoadLevel("GameOver");
}
Another option would be to make something like a singleton LevelManager MonoBehavior and add it to an object named "Level Manager". Use the DontDestroyOnLoad function to make the object persist even when you load another level.
class LevelManager : MonoBehavior
{
static LevelManager _instance;
public string currentLevelName;
public string killedBy;
function Awake ()
{
if (_instance == null)
{
_instance = this;
DontDestroyOnLoad(gameObject);
}
else
{
Destroy(gameObject); // Make sure we never have more than 1 Level Manager.
}
}
LevelManager Instance
{
get
{
if (_instance == null)
{
GameObject levelManagerObject = GameObject.Find("Level Manager");
_instance = levelManagerObject.GetComponent<LevelManager>();
}
return _instance
}
}
}
Then, from the main menu class, you can always access the Level Manager like so:
Debug.Log("Killed by " + LevelManager.Instance.killedBy);
or
LevelManager.Instance.currentLevelName = Application.loadedLevelName;

WinForms Thread-safe Controls

I spend a lot of time working with Windows Forms controls but from a background worker thread - I suppose this is good practice really since you don't want your form to be locking up when people click buttons. To be honest, with just about everything GUI related action I normally do in a background worker thread, so the interface is nice an responsive to the user (Wish more people would do that!).
So my question is... every time I have to interact with controls I have to "Invoke" them, with something like:
if (control.InvokeRequired)
{
//
}
Standard practice right? However, this leads me to some terribly messy code, because just about every control type I have, I need a MethodInvoker delegate or something. It's adding thousands of lines of code to my protects, and its terribly time consuming.
I currently have hundreds of "property setting" methods like:
private void Safe_SetLableText(Label control, string text)
{
if (control.InvokeRequired)
{
control.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
control.Text = text;
});
}
else
{
control.Text = text;
}
}
So, is there some other technique, or way to do this, or some way to being able to always alter a property of a control, no matter what the control is and no matter what thread im in?
something like: (pseudocode)
BackgroundWorker.RunWorkerAsync();
private void thing_to_do()
{
// We are in a background thread now
DoSomeDatabaseWorkThatTakesALongTime();
InvokeAnyControls();
// Do some stuff...
controlX.Text = "123"
controlY.Height = 300;
controlZ.text = ControlA.text;
RestoreAnyControls();
}
You could wrap your InvokeRequired code with a delegate, like so:
public static void Invoke2<TControl>(this TControl c, Action<TControl> code) where TControl : Control {
if( c.InvokeRequired ) c.Invoke( delegate() { code(c); } );
else code(c);
}
Then use it like so:
private void Safe_SetLableText(Label control, string text) {
control.Invoke2( c => c.Text = text );
}
Of course you might want better names than Invoke2, but I hope the idea sits will with you. Note that the lambda-expression syntax is a C# 3.0 feature, but the Action<T> delegate is part of .NET 2.0, so this will compile against the .NET Framework 2.0 so long as you're VS2008 or later.
I'm posting an answer to my own question because I think it will add value to the community.
1) I wanted to "simplify" my code, and one if the most important finds was that that the:
control.InvokeRequired
really isnt needed... its pretty much a given. Importantly, you CAN rely on the fact that the control will need to be invoked if you are in a background (or non-UI) thread.
2) The invocation travels "UP" the control tree, so if you have:
Form > Control > Control inside Control > etc > etc
You only need to invoke "Form" (top most), and then you can alter the properties of the child elements.
So here is my clean and simple solution to working with background workers (or non-UI threads). I have just tested this now and it works great.
public partial class Form1: Form
{
public Form1()
{
BackgroundWorker bgw = new BackgroundWorker();
bgw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(this.bgDoWork);
bgw.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(this.bgComplete);
bgw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void bgComplete(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// You are not in the UI thread now, so you can Invoke without error
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
// Now you can change any property an any control within this form.
// Remember "this" refers to Form1.
this.label1.Text = "test123";
this.label2.Text = "test456";
this.label3.Text = this.label4.Text;
// You can set progress bars too, not just label text
}
}
private void bgDoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
// Do something that takes a long time
}
}
As you are already using the Background worker why don't you 'misuse' OnProgressChanged?
private void thing_to_do()
{
// We are in a background thread now
DoSomeDatabaseWorkThatTakesALongTime();
BackgroundWorker.ReportProgress(1, "state");
DoSomeMoreDatabaseWorkThatTakesALongTime();
BackgroundWorker.ReportProgress(2, YourObjectHere);
}
void OnProgressChanged(ProgressChangedEventArgs progressArgs)
{
switch(progressArgs.ProgressPercentage)
{
case 1:
// Do some stuff...
controlX.Text = "123"
controlY.Height = 300;
controlZ.text = ControlA.text;
break;
case 2:
// other stuff
YourObject obj = (YourObject) progressArgs.UserState;
// wahtever...
break;
default:
break;
}
}

Customs binding cross views in mvvmcross

I need a custom binding and I know when and where but I don't know how I can do it. This is the relation of the view in my custom binding. Think about the *Views like controls.
I have the connections from ViewModel->ContainerView->FirstView but I can't connect it with the TableView. To connect the ContainerView to FirstView I did a custom binding (in one direction for now). And in the setvalue method I call the firstview's method SetBinding (where I want to do the binding)
I tried a few option but nothing happens, the last one looks like this:
public GolferList CurrentGolferList { get; set; }
public void SetBinding(GolferList golferList){
this.CurrentGolferList = golferList;
TableSource = new TableSourcePlayers(TableViewPlayers);
var bindingDescription = new[]{
new MvxBindingDescription {TargetName = "ItemsSource",SourcePropertyPath = "CurrentGolferList"} ,
};
Binder.Bind(this,TableSource, bindingDescription);
TableViewPlayers.Source = TableSource;
TableViewPlayers.ReloadData();
}
I would be grateful if you could tell me another way to handle it.
Update:
I followed Stuart's link and now it works fine, thanks a lot Stuart!
Actually, in my scheme the TableView is a MvxSimpleBindableTableViewSource and I want to bind the data there. So in order to make it work, I used the code below (SetBinding needs some external refactor):
private List<IMvxUpdateableBinding> bindings;
private string BindingText = "{'ItemsSource':{'Path':'CurrentGolfers'}}";
public object DataContext {
get { return dataContext; }
set { dataContext = value;
if (bindings == null)
bindings = this.GetService<IMvxBinder>().Bind(dataContext, TableSource, BindingText).ToList();
else
bindings.ForEach(b => b.DataContext = dataContext);
}
}
public void SetBinding(GolferList golferList){
this.DataContext = PlayViewModel;
tableView.Source = TableSource;
tableView.ReloadData();
}
Note that BindingText points to the table, not to the view itself.
Update 2
Now in V3 it's a bit different. First, the view must implement IMvxBindable and this members:
public object DataContext
{
get { return BindingContext.DataContext; }
set { BindingContext.DataContext = value; }
}
public IMvxBindingContext BindingContext { get; set; }
(Don't forget dispose calling BindingContext.ClearAllBindings() and also call to CreateBindingContext() in the viewload )
And then you'll be able to bind in your class. In my case:
var set = this.CreateBindingSet<FirstPlayViewController, PlayViewModel>();
set.Bind(source).To(vm => vm.CurrentGolfers).Apply(); //I love the new fluent api :)
I think what you want to do is actual a data-bound View, rather than a custom binding.
This is covered in this question - Custom bindable control in a MvvmCross Touch project
Basically what you need to do is to add a collection of 'Bindings' and the 'DataContext' property to your FirstView.
If you do that then you should be able to databind (to DataContext) within FirstView just like you do within any normal MvvmCross view.
Note - this will be much easier to do in v3 as we've added a 'BindingContext' object to assist with exactly this type of operation

Resources