M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
Lester
Peter O'Hanlon
The MVVM toolkit was released today on codeplex. Its come out really well... Give it a try and we appreciate any feedbackYou can read more here
Peter O'Hanlon
Corrado Cavalli
Very good! I like the CommandReference idea for keyboard binding.
Please consider in a future release to include support for mediator pattern for parts intercommunication.
-Corrado
Sacha Barber
What took you guys
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:01:37 -0700
Subject: [WPF Disciples] M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
Surfing the web just got more rewarding. Download the New Internet Explorer 8
Marlon Grech
Marlon Grech
Sacha Barber
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 10:09:52 +0200
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
From: marlo...@gmail.com
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Get the New Internet Explore 8 Optimised for MSN. Download Now
Jaime Rodriguez
[Added Ivo, test manager who releases this and whose team coded it]..
The team already knows this is a 0.1 and it is quite incomplete…
but they like to “spike” in tiny releases to get
feedback. You see this trend in their TestAPI and
WPF QualityGuide; for those projects, small updates is working well ..
On the MVVM toolkit, they will pick code from externals (including me as external) by 0.5, which is next release… I had already asked Laurent and couple others if we could use some of their code.. 0.1 was released mostly so we had the codeplex infrastructure to rev it (cause our guys are not used to copying externals’ code, so they wanted to release something so we could create a “community place” where rest of us could engage)..
The features discussed for 0.5 include:
· Mediator (both for navigation and exception handling)
· DataContextSpy -- uses Freezable to forward DataContext … ( from Josh Smith’s and Mike Hillberg’s posts)..
· DesignTimeDataConext -- is AttachedBehavior design-time data
· More samples of Attached behaviors (e.g. ListBoxSelection, what else?? )
· A WeakEvent listener implementation (undecided between current one in toolkit, wekempfs, or david anson’s)…
· Potentially including the stronger type OnPropertyChanged notifications that does not use strings; I need to read more on that but iirc it came from people in this alias)..
· What else?? There are a few other ideas we have, but want to keep it minimal and less confusing, if we start adding three ways to do same thing that might get confusing..
The goal is to stay light and easy to understand, so unfortunately this will not be as “elegant” and “flexible” as say Onyx or Prism. It needs to be easy to read and understand for the average WPF programmer.. In case any one besides Karl cares, we will do a VB version too..
Feel free to share feedback both on 0.1 and the plans for 0.5 …
Sorry we did not give you the “this is a 10% of what we need”
warning ahead of time..
Cheers,
Sacha Barber
If what you say below is true than it could be good. My prefferred Mediator implementation is Marlon/Josh.
I would like to see services in there such as MessageBox/Files/ShowDialog etc etc etc
From: jai...@microsoft.com
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
CC: iv...@windows.microsoft.com
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 09:17:40 -0700
Jaime Rodriguez
When I approached Laurent for this, he had said he would be “merging all best ideas into a light mvvm framework” … I did get his code, but I have not reviewed or compared implementations yet.. Let us look into the code first and then when we are leaning towards one we can discuss as a group.. Again, the disclaimer is that the goal is to keep it simple enough that average people can use it, yet powerful enough that it is functional..
Re: MessageBox/DialogBox/etc.. . I use Mediator for
Navigation across views and I am was leaning for toolkit towards extending the mediator
to expose services to manage dialogs too.. I have done this
before in real projects and it worked well; what this means is that the
Mediator offers a service to “ShowError”, “ShowDialog”
, etc.. I know that makes the
mediator less pure, but it is easier for people to grasp from having to have a
Mediator for communication across views, and then a service for dialogs.. this goes
back to my line below of “There are a few other ideas
we have, but want to keep it minimal and less confusing, if we start adding
three ways to do same thing that might get confusing” ..
Again happy to capture feedback.. I know you and I will be discussing it next week, right? ?
I think the action items here are:
1.- Review the existing implementations and pick most suitable implementation (notice I did not say best, we might not pick best based on simplicity).
2.- Write the proposal on how it will be merged and how each known gap ( e.g. navigation, exceptions, dialogs, testing, etc. will be filled ) …
3.- Capture the feedback and argue it here as a group; I am sure a few items will be controversial …
4.- Merge and release..
Give us time to figure #1 and #2. .. but rest assured that we will discuss it here (and everywhere else) before releasing 0.5 …
Sacha Barber
Windows Live Messenger just got better. Find out more!
Corrado Cavalli
Jaime,
I’m with you when you say that project must be driven by simplicity, the list is very cool. I also vote for Marlon/Josh implementation of Mediator, I really like the attribute approach.
What about a generic event to command mapper? (e.g ListBoxSelection)
I also love to have a SL counterpart and Blend behaviors.
-Corrado
From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaime Rodriguez
Sent: domenica 3 maggio 2009 18:18
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Ivo Manolov
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
[Added Ivo, test manager who releases this and whose team coded it]..
The team already knows this is a 0.1 and it is quite incomplete…
but they like to “spike” in tiny releases to get
feedback. You see this trend in their TestAPI and
WPF QualityGuide; for those projects, small updates is working well ..
On the MVVM toolkit, they will pick code from externals (including me as external) by 0.5, which is next release… I had already asked Laurent and couple others if we could use some of their code.. 0.1 was released mostly so we had the codeplex infrastructure to rev it (cause our guys are not used to copying externals’ code, so they wanted to release something so we could create a “community place” where rest of us could engage)..
The features discussed for 0.5 include:
· Mediator (both for navigation and exception handling)
· DataContextSpy -- uses Freezable to forward DataContext … ( from Josh Smith’s and Mike Hillberg’s posts)..
· DesignTimeDataConext -- is AttachedBehavior design-time data
· More samples of Attached behaviors (e.g. ListBoxSelection, what else?? )
· A WeakEvent listener implementation (undecided between current one in toolkit, wekempfs, or david anson’s)…
· Potentially including the stronger type OnPropertyChanged notifications that does not use strings; I need to read more on that but iirc it came from people in this alias)..
· What else?? There are a few other ideas we have, but want to keep it minimal and less confusing, if we start adding three ways to do same thing that might get confusing..
The goal is to stay light and easy to understand, so unfortunately this will not be as “elegant” and “flexible” as say Onyx or Prism. It needs to be easy to read and understand for the average WPF programmer.. In case any one besides Karl cares, we will do a VB version too..
Feel free to share feedback both on 0.1 and the plans for 0.5
… Sorry we did not give you the “this is a 10% of
what we need” warning ahead of time..
Cheers,
From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sacha Barber
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 7:49 AM
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Peter O'Hanlon
The MVVM toolkit was released today on codeplex. Its come out really well... Give it a try and we appreciate any feedbackYou can read more here
--
Peter O'Hanlon
Laurent Bugnion
For errors and dialogs, you can use my mediator with a CommandMessage, and have the Views listen to that. It would be great to have a callback though (for example for a dialog result to be passed back to the VM) and this is on my todo list for VNext.
Laurent
--
Sent from mobile
-original message-
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
From: Jaime Rodriguez <jai...@microsoft.com>
Date: 03.05.2009 18:52
When I approached Laurent for this, he had said he would be "merging all best ideas into a light mvvm framework" ... I did get his code, but I have not reviewed or compared implementations yet.. Let us look into the code first and then when we are leaning towards one we can discuss as a group.. Again, the disclaimer is that the goal is to keep it simple enough that average people can use it, yet powerful enough that it is functional..
Re: MessageBox/DialogBox/etc.. . I use Mediator for Navigation across views and I am was leaning for toolkit towards extending the mediator to expose services to manage dialogs too.. I have done this before in real projects and it worked well; what this means is that the Mediator offers a service to "ShowError", "ShowDialog" , etc.. I know that makes the mediator less pure, but it is easier for people to grasp from having to have a Mediator for communication across views, and then a service for dialogs.. this goes back to my line below of "There are a few other ideas we have, but want to keep it minimal and less confusing, if we start adding three ways to do same thing that might get confusing" ..
Again happy to capture feedback.. I know you and I will be discussing it next week, right? ?
I think the action items here are:
1.- Review the existing implementations and pick most suitable implementation (notice I did not say best, we might not pick best based on simplicity).
2.- Write the proposal on how it will be merged and how each known gap ( e.g. navigation, exceptions, dialogs, testing, etc. will be filled ) ...
3.- Capture the feedback and argue it here as a group; I am sure a few items will be controversial ...
4.- Merge and release..
Give us time to figure #1 and #2. .. but rest assured that we will discuss it here (and everywhere else) before releasing 0.5 ...
From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sacha Barber
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 9:21 AM
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
Jaimer
If what you say below is true than it could be good. My prefferred Mediator implementation is Marlon/Josh.
I would like to see services in there such as MessageBox/Files/ShowDialog etc etc etc
________________________________
From: jai...@microsoft.com
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
CC: iv...@windows.microsoft.com
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 09:17:40 -0700
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
[Added Ivo, test manager who releases this and whose team coded it]..
The team already knows this is a 0.1 and it is quite incomplete... but they like to "spike" in tiny releases to get feedback. You see this trend in their TestAPI and WPF QualityGuide; for those projects, small updates is working well ..
On the MVVM toolkit, they will pick code from externals (including me as external) by 0.5, which is next release... I had already asked Laurent and couple others if we could use some of their code.. 0.1 was released mostly so we had the codeplex infrastructure to rev it (cause our guys are not used to copying externals' code, so they wanted to release something so we could create a "community place" where rest of us could engage)..
The features discussed for 0.5 include:
* Mediator (both for navigation and exception handling)
* DataContextSpy -- uses Freezable to forward DataContext ... ( from Josh Smith's and Mike Hillberg's posts)..
* DesignTimeDataConext -- is AttachedBehavior design-time data
* More samples of Attached behaviors (e.g. ListBoxSelection, what else?? )
* A WeakEvent listener implementation (undecided between current one in toolkit, wekempfs, or david anson's)...
* Potentially including the stronger type OnPropertyChanged notifications that does not use strings; I need to read more on that but iirc it came from people in this alias)..
* What else?? There are a few other ideas we have, but want to keep it minimal and less confusing, if we start adding three ways to do same thing that might get confusing..
The goal is to stay light and easy to understand, so unfortunately this will not be as "elegant" and "flexible" as say Onyx or Prism. It needs to be easy to read and understand for the average WPF programmer.. In case any one besides Karl cares, we will do a VB version too..
Feel free to share feedback both on 0.1 and the plans for 0.5 ... Sorry we did not give you the "this is a 10% of what we need" warning ahead of time..
Cheers,
From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sacha Barber
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 7:49 AM
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
In my opinion this is not enough at all, as there is NO support for Dialog/MessageBoxs/ etc etc, all things for the Vm to have to do.
________________________________
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 10:09:52 +0200
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
From: marlo...@gmail.com
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Nice.... yet is it enough?
I would include the Mediator inside the toolkit.... I think it is really handy to have while developing MVVM! Also I would put in the blend behaviours..... people want one library that can help them while developing MVVM apps.... why do we have to add multiple references....
Would be cool to see how the WPF team would implement the Mediator :)
Regards
Marlon
WPF Blog - http://marlongrech.wordpress.com/
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Sacha Barber <sacha...@hotmail.com<mailto:sacha...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Lester
What took you guys
________________________________
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:01:37 -0700
Subject: [WPF Disciples] M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
From: leste...@gmail.com<mailto:leste...@gmail.com>
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com<mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com>
The MVVM toolkit was released today on codeplex. Its come out really well... Give it a try and we appreciate any feedback
You can read more here<http://blogs.msdn.com/llobo/archive/2009/05/01/download-m-v-vm-project-template-toolkit.aspx>
________________________________
Surfing the web just got more rewarding. Download the New Internet Explorer 8<http://extras.uk.msn.com/internet-explorer-8/?ocid=T010MSN07A0716U>
________________________________
Get the New Internet Explore 8 Optimised for MSN. Download Now<http://extras.uk.msn.com/internet-explorer-8/?ocid=T010MSN07A0716U>
________________________________
Surfing the web just got more rewarding. Download the New Internet Explorer 8<http://extras.uk.msn.com/internet-explorer-8/?ocid=T010MSN07A0716U>
Lester
Sacha Barber
" Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 Optimised for MSN. " Download Now
Bill Kempf
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
- Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Bugs are features.
Corrado Cavalli
Just had a look at Jumal’s work http://www.julmar.com/blog/mark/PermaLink,guid,8b3e4279-70a5-431e-8fa3-4c1e047df311.aspx very good, complete with lots of interesting features.
Think I’ll use some ideas in my coming projects, maybe WPF folks can grab some inspiration for v 0.5 (e.g. CommandEvent)
-Corrado
From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sacha Barber
Sent: domenica 3 maggio 2009 18:21
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
Jaimer
If what you say below is true than it could be good. My prefferred Mediator
implementation is Marlon/Josh.
I would like to see services in there such as MessageBox/Files/ShowDialog etc
etc etc
Sacha Barber
Of course Bill is biased, as he wrote THE BEST framework for MVVM out there. Oynx is excellent.
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 11:18:14 -0400
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
" Upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 Optimised for MSN. " Download Now
Sacha Barber
From: corrado...@gmail.com
Laurent Bugnion
I agree. I like CommandEvent. I like the IUIVisualizer less, though. I find it hard to wrap my head around this concept. Maybe I should try and use it, but I prefer not to mix View and ViewModel if I can avoid it. For instance, I am not sure how I could unit test a IUIVisualizer, and if I cannot unit test it, I prefer not to leave it in the VM. I am not saying it’s bad, and I am sure it can be really useful, but I don’t think I will use it.
I will probably “steal” the CommandEvent in future projects ;) and still hesitating to use a ViewModelCreator to bind the DataContext of my Views to the ViewModel. As I showed a few times, for the moment I put the VM in the View’s resources and I like this way of doing, but I also see the advantage of having something more “compact” and more automated. Still hesitating there.
Cheers,
Laurent
Corrado Cavalli
I’m not against ViewModelCreator since ViewModels use the ServiceProvider that let me initialize all my ViewModels w/o requiring a dedicated Ctor (this would also simplify Blendability), I like automatic lookup of close/activate events and the fact that is very easy to implement a multi-viewmodel view.
I’m not totally convinced about IUIVisalizer either but think it worth investigating further.
-Corrado
PS: Is Mark a Disciple?
From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurent Bugnion
Sent: lunedì 4 maggio 2009 20:59
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
I agree. I like CommandEvent. I like the IUIVisualizer less, though. I find it hard to wrap my head around this concept. Maybe I should try and use it, but I prefer not to mix View and ViewModel if I can avoid it. For instance, I am not sure how I could unit test a IUIVisualizer, and if I cannot unit test it, I prefer not to leave it in the VM. I am not saying it’s bad, and I am sure it can be really useful, but I don’t think I will use it.
I will probably “steal” the CommandEvent in future projects ;) and still hesitating to use a ViewModelCreator to bind the DataContext of my Views to the ViewModel. As I showed a few times, for the moment I put the VM in the View’s resources and I like this way of doing, but I also see the advantage of having something more “compact” and more automated. Still hesitating there.
Cheers,
Laurent
From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Corrado Cavalli
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 6:53 PM
Sacha Barber
Laurent Bugnion
It took me some time to realize that Mark Smith, JulMar and “Jumal” are one and the same ;)
Laurent
Corrado Cavalli
:-D and I even read his name!
Wonder why he’s so silent… :-D
-Corrado
From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurent Bugnion
Sent: lunedì 4 maggio 2009 22:04
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
It took me some time to realize that Mark Smith, JulMar and “Jumal” are one and the same ;)
Laurent
Laurent Bugnion
Maybe he is one of these weird people who has, you know, a life ;)
Peter O'Hanlon
Peter O'Hanlon
Mark Smith
Lester
(Ivo's contact email: iv...@microsoft.com)
From: Ivo Manolov(iv...@microsoft.com)
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:21 AM
To: Jaime Rodriguez; wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Patrick Danino
Subject: RE: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
Sorry to join this discussion with a bit of a delay…
First of all,
Thanks all for taking a look at the “toolkit”, engaging on this discussion and sharing feedback.
Secondly,
Jamie is right – we know that what we released is not a complete solution – it’s a v.0.1
What we wanted to achieve with this first preliminary version is:
a) Provide a simple MVVM ramp-up guidance to WPF developers new to the MVVM paradigm
b) Demonstrate general direction and solicit feedback from the expert MVVM community
c) Identify and correct limitations in the WPF platform
d) Test and prototype tooling experiences for MVVM apps
As with many of our other releases, we’ve adopted an evolutionary, gradual-development approach.
We realize we’ve created a bit of a problem with the default VS templates, and we want to fix that. Frankly, I hope we will eventually end up with a default WPF app template in VS that supports the principles of model-view separation, not one that contradicts with them. We do want to keep the template as simple as possible (the barrier of entry to MVVM has to be low) while providing a reasonable starting point for anybody writing WPF MVVM applications.
Given these goals, I think you guys can be an invaluable resource evolving this toolkit in the right direction, informing changes we need to make to the platform to enable MVVM and defining a simple and natural programming and tooling experience. So let’s identify a few features, integrate them into the template, release, solicit feedback, rinse and repeat. We seem to have a good list going further down in the thread.
Thanks again for your feedback and let’s work together on fixing all of these.
Ivo
p.s. fyi we have just approved a DCR in WPF 4.0 to enable binding input gestures to commands in the view model.
Mike Brown
p.s. fyi we have just approved a DCR in WPF 4.0 to enable binding input gestures to commands in the view model.
Bill Kempf
p.s. fyi we have just approved a DCR in WPF 4.0 to enable binding input gestures to commands in the view model.
We know ;)
Marlon Grech
Pavan Podila
discussions. I am sure MS can piggy back off those ideas.
On May 7, 12:04 pm, Lester <lester.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Ivo's contact email: i...@microsoft.com)
>
> *From:* Ivo Manolov(i...@microsoft.com)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:21 AM
> *To:* Jaime Rodriguez; wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> *Cc:* Patrick Danino
> *Subject:* RE: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
> > LOL .. thanks Pete :-)
>
> > Sorry guys, I'm teaching a class in Los Angeles this week so I don't get to
> > actively read the posts until it's over..
>
> > yes:
>
> > Mark Smith == JulMar == Mark Julma
>
> > When I created JulMar I3 years ago I thought it was cute to combine my
> > (new) wife and my name "Julie + Mark" == "JulMar" .. now it's just a pain in
> > the ass to explain to people.. have to spell it all the time. Wishing I'd
> > gone with a TLA.
>
> > mark
>
> > On May 4, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Peter O'Hanlon wrote:
>
> > He has no business being a disciple then.;->
>
>
> >> Maybe he is one of these weird people who has, you know, a life ;)
>
> >> wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Corrado Cavalli
> >> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2009 10:17 PM
>
> >> *To:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
> >> :-D and I even read his name!
>
> >> Wonder why he’s so silent… :-D
>
> >> -Corrado
>
> >> wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Laurent Bugnion
> >> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 22:04
> >> *To:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
> >> It took me some time to realize that Mark Smith, JulMar and “Jumal” are
> >> one and the same ;)
>
> >> Laurent
>
> >> wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Sacha Barber
> >> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2009 9:36 PM
> >> *To:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
> >> Yes her sure is a Disciple
> >> From: corradocava...@gmail.com
> >> To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> >> Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
> >> Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 21:34:32 +0200
>
> >> I’m not against ViewModelCreator since ViewModels use the ServiceProvider
> >> that let me initialize all my ViewModels w/o requiring a dedicated Ctor
> >> (this would also simplify Blendability), I like automatic lookup of
> >> close/activate events and the fact that is very easy to implement a
> >> multi-viewmodel view.
>
> >> I’m not totally convinced about IUIVisalizer either but think it worth
> >> investigating further.
>
> >> -Corrado
>
> >> PS: Is Mark a Disciple?
>
> >> wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Laurent Bugnion
> >> *Sent:* lunedì 4 maggio 2009 20:59
> >> *To:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
> >> I agree. I like CommandEvent. I like the IUIVisualizer less, though. I
> >> find it hard to wrap my head around this concept. Maybe I should try and use
> >> it, but I prefer not to mix View and ViewModel if I can avoid it. For
> >> instance, I am not sure how I could unit test a IUIVisualizer, and if I
> >> cannot unit test it, I prefer not to leave it in the VM. I am not saying
> >> it’s bad, and I am sure it can be really useful, but I don’t think I will
> >> use it.
>
> >> I will probably “steal” the CommandEvent in future projects ;) and still
> >> hesitating to use a ViewModelCreator to bind the DataContext of my Views to
> >> the ViewModel. As I showed a few times, for the moment I put the VM in the
> >> View’s resources and I like this way of doing, but I also see the advantage
> >> of having something more “compact” and more automated. Still hesitating
> >> there.
>
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> Laurent
>
> >> wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Corrado Cavalli
> >> *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2009 6:53 PM
> >> *To:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
> >> Just had a look at Jumal’s work
> >> Think I’ll use some ideas in my coming projects, maybe WPF folks can grab
> >> some inspiration for v 0.5 (e.g. CommandEvent)
>
> >> -Corrado
>
> >> wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Sacha Barber
> >> *Sent:* domenica 3 maggio 2009 18:21
> >> *To:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
> >> Jaimer
>
> >> If what you say below is true than it could be good. My prefferred
> >> Mediator implementation is Marlon/Josh.
>
> >> I would like to see services in there such as MessageBox/Files/ShowDialog
> >> etc etc etc
>
> >> *From:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> >> wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Sacha Barber
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 03, 2009 7:49 AM
> >> *To:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] Re: M-V-VM Project Template/Toolkit
> >> In my opinion this is not enough at all, as there is NO support for
> >> Dialog/MessageBoxs/ etc etc, all things for the Vm to have to do.
>
> >> Date: Sun, 3
>
> ...
>
> read more »