A common framework, and why we don't do it

165 views
Skip to first unread message

Laurent Bugnion, GalaSoft

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 5:12:59 PM9/29/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com

Hey guys,

 

Someone posted an interesting question on my blog

 

Hi Laurent,

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but I was wondering why all the disciples don't try to contribute to the same MVVM framework. Seems like Josh, Marlon, Karl, and Pete also have similar tools (though of course unique in many ways). Seems like the MVVM Framework on CodePlex is a good place to start. "Contrib" libraries with each person's unique features could dissolve into the trunk over time as they mature. What are your thoughts?

Thanks,
David Cuccia

 

I did my best to reply to David, the reply is at http://geekswithblogs.net/lbugnion/archive/2009/09/27/mvvm-light-toolkit-messenger-v2-beta.aspx#488823

 

If you want to chime in, feel free. If you prefer to answer on the group, it’s fine too. I have thought about that a few times myself too, and tried to summarize my feelings in my reply.

 

Cheers,

Laurent

--

Laurent Bugnion [Microsoft MVP, MCP]

Blog: http://blog.galasoft.ch

Web: http://www.galasoft.ch

Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

 

cid:image001.png@01C9C8AA.B722DA80

My

business

card

as

Microsoft Tag

 

 

image001.png

Josh Smith

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 5:18:30 PM9/29/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
I think that having a bunch of strong-minded, vocal developers/architects try to agree on what's "best" will end in blood and tears.  :)  Seriously, we all have our own agendas and preferences.  Why neuter our individual ambitions to create one framework of compromises that doesn't really meet any of our needs?

Josh
image001.png

Laurent Bugnion, GalaSoft

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 5:52:10 PM9/29/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com

I think it’s more or less what I was trying to convey (in maybe slightly different words ;))

 

Cheers,

Laurent

image001.png

Justin Angel

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 6:18:04 PM9/29/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com

Agreeing with Josh and expanding a bit.

 

One really doesn’t need an MVVM framework.

MVVM is a fairly straightforward easy concept and not terribly hard to implement if you know C# and understand SL/WPF.

 

If you had to write your own MVVM framework it’ll take a SL/WPF expert about 1 day to do 80% of the work.

That makes MVVM frameworks extremely susceptible to Not Invented Here syndrome.

 

Additionally, one strictly doesn’t need a MVVM framework.

It’s definitely possible to build a micro app (ad) or small sized apps (twitter client) with ad-hoc MVVM architecture.

It’ll be darn stupid for someone to do that, but it’s more than possible

 

So couple ease of creation with lack of necessity and you get 20 MVVM frameworks.

There are some really great MVVM frameworks out there: Caliburn, MVVM Toolkit, Prism, WPF Toolkit, etc.

Each as josh said with its own unique style and flavour.

 

Personally, I believe once Microsoft ships something stable (and usable) in that area integrated into Visual Studio, it’s curtains down for most MVVM frameworks.

Which is roughly what happened in the Persistence Layer / ORM .net open source area when Microsoft shipped Linq2Sql and EF.

The stable and serious open source / commercial offerings stayed around (NH, IdeaBlade, etc) but the small ones just disappeared.

 

-- Justin

 

From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Smith
Sent: September-29-09 2:19 PM
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: A common framework, and why we don't do it

 

I think that having a bunch of strong-minded, vocal developers/architects try to agree on what's "best" will end in blood and tears.  :)  Seriously, we all have our own agendas and preferences.  Why neuter our individual ambitions to create one framework of compromises that doesn't really meet any of our needs?

image001.png

Justin Angel

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 6:20:37 PM9/29/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com

Agreeing with Josh and expanding a bit.

 

One really doesn’t need an MVVM framework.

MVVM is a fairly straightforward easy concept and not terribly hard to implement if you know C# and understand SL/WPF.

 

If you had to write your own MVVM framework it’ll take a SL/WPF expert about 1 day to do 80% of the work.

That makes MVVM frameworks extremely susceptible to Not Invented Here syndrome.

 

Additionally, one strictly doesn’t need a MVVM framework.

It’s definitely possible to build a micro app (ad) or small sized apps (twitter client) with ad-hoc MVVM architecture.

It’ll be darn stupid for someone to do that, but it’s more than possible

 

So couple ease of creation with lack of necessity and you get 20 MVVM frameworks.

There are some really great MVVM frameworks out there: Caliburn, MVVM Toolkit, Prism, WPF Toolkit, etc.

Each as josh said with its own unique style and flavour.

 

Personally, I believe once Microsoft ships something stable (and usable) in that area integrated into Visual Studio, it’s curtains down for most MVVM frameworks.

Which is roughly what happened in the Persistence Layer / ORM .net open source area when Microsoft shipped Linq2Sql and EF.

The stable and serious open source / commercial offerings stayed around (NH, IdeaBlade, etc) but the small ones just disappeared.

 

-- Justin

 

From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Josh Smith
Sent: September-29-09 2:19 PM
To: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: A common framework, and why we don't do it

 

I think that having a bunch of strong-minded, vocal developers/architects try to agree on what's "best" will end in blood and tears.  :)  Seriously, we all have our own agendas and preferences.  Why neuter our individual ambitions to create one framework of compromises that doesn't really meet any of our needs?

image001.png

Mike Brown

unread,
Sep 29, 2009, 10:02:18 PM9/29/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
I agree with what justin is saying WRT simplicity of implementing your own MVVM solution. I think there is value in doing it yourself...it's like a Jedi making his first lightsaber. Basically, it's a collection of patterns (MVVM, DelegateCommand, Event Broker, Attached Behaviors) that are useful for wpf development. There's a lot of nuances and variations in how to get it all working and like Justin mentioned, any effort to make a single framework will likely be trumped by an integrated solution from Redmond.
image001.png

Laurent Bugnion

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 1:09:18 AM9/30/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Hey Justin,

Exactly. I also mentioned in my reply on my blog that i would be more enclined to participate to a larger scale project if I didn't think that most of it will flow in the framework eventually, making most of my toolkit redundant and obsolete.

Cheers,
Laurent
--
Sent from mobile

-original message-
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: A common framework, and why we don't do it
From: Mike Brown <mbro...@gmail.com>
Date: 30.09.2009 04:03

I agree with what justin is saying WRT simplicity of implementing your own
MVVM solution. I think there is value in doing it yourself...it's like a
Jedi making his first lightsaber. Basically, it's a collection of patterns
(MVVM, DelegateCommand, Event Broker, Attached Behaviors) that are useful
for wpf development. There's a lot of nuances and variations in how to get
it all working and like Justin mentioned, any effort to make a single
framework will likely be trumped by an integrated solution from Redmond.


On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Justin Angel <J...@justinangel.net> wrote:

> Agreeing with Josh and expanding a bit.
>
>
>
> One really doesn’t need an MVVM framework.
>
> MVVM is a fairly straightforward easy concept and not terribly hard to
> implement if you know C# and understand SL/WPF.
>
>
>
> If you had to write your own MVVM framework it’ll take a SL/WPF expert
> about 1 day to do 80% of the work.
>
> That makes MVVM frameworks extremely susceptible to Not Invented Here
> syndrome.
>
>
>

> Additionally, one strictly doesn’t *need* a MVVM framework.


>
> It’s definitely possible to build a micro app (ad) or small sized apps
> (twitter client) with ad-hoc MVVM architecture.
>
> It’ll be darn stupid for someone to do that, but it’s more than possible
>
>
>
> So couple ease of creation with lack of necessity and you get 20 MVVM
> frameworks.
>
> There are some really great MVVM frameworks out there: Caliburn, MVVM
> Toolkit, Prism, WPF Toolkit, etc.
>
> Each as josh said with its own unique style and flavour.
>
>
>
> Personally, I believe once Microsoft ships something stable (and usable) in
> that area integrated into Visual Studio, it’s curtains down for most MVVM
> frameworks.
>
> Which is roughly what happened in the Persistence Layer / ORM .net open
> source area when Microsoft shipped Linq2Sql and EF.
>
> The stable and serious open source / commercial offerings stayed around
> (NH, IdeaBlade, etc) but the small ones just disappeared.
>
>
>
> -- Justin
>
>
>

> *From:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> wpf-di...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Smith
> *Sent:* September-29-09 2:19 PM
> *To:* wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* [WPF Disciples] Re: A common framework, and why we don't do it

> Blog: http://blog.galasoft.ch <http://www.galasoft.ch/>


>
> Web: http://www.galasoft.ch
>
> Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch
>
>
>

> [image: cid:image0...@01C9C8AA.B722DA80]
>
> My
>
> business
>
> card
>
> as
>
> Microsoft Tag <http://www.microsoft.com/tag>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


<<image001.png>>

Daniel Vaughan

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 3:57:01 AM9/30/09
to WPF Disciples
Yes, it would probably end in tears.
Perhaps we could set up a Disciples Resources page. I know we'd all
like to see our own projects gain more visibility, and perhaps if they
are all in the one place, users will have a place to easily pick and
choose.

On Sep 29, 11:18 pm, Josh Smith <flappleja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that having a bunch of strong-minded, vocal developers/architects
> try to agree on what's "best" will end in blood and tears.  :)  Seriously,
> we all have our own agendas and preferences.  Why neuter our individual
> ambitions to create one framework of compromises that doesn't really meet
> any of our needs?
> Josh
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Laurent Bugnion, GalaSoft <
>
> laur...@galasoft.ch> wrote:
> >  Hey guys,
>
> > Someone posted an interesting question on my blog
>
> > Hi Laurent,
>
> > I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but I was wondering
> > why all the disciples don't try to contribute to the same MVVM framework.
> > Seems like Josh, Marlon, Karl, and Pete also have similar tools (though of
> > course unique in many ways). Seems like the MVVM Framework on CodePlex is a
> > good place to start. "Contrib" libraries with each person's unique features
> > could dissolve into the trunk over time as they mature. What are your
> > thoughts?
>
> > Thanks,
> > David Cuccia
>
> > I did my best to reply to David, the reply is at
> >http://geekswithblogs.net/lbugnion/archive/2009/09/27/mvvm-light-tool...
>
> > If you want to chime in, feel free. If you prefer to answer on the group,
> > it’s fine too. I have thought about that a few times myself too, and tried
> > to summarize my feelings in my reply.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Laurent
>
> > --
>
> > Laurent Bugnion [Microsoft MVP, MCP]
>
> > Blog:http://blog.galasoft.ch<http://www.galasoft.ch/>
>
> > Web:http://www.galasoft.ch
>
> > Support children in Calcutta:http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch
>
> > [image: cid:image001....@01C9C8AA.B722DA80]
>
> > My
>
> > business
>
> > card
>
> > as
>
> > Microsoft Tag <http://www.microsoft.com/tag>
>
>
>
>  image001.png
> 7KViewDownload

Jeremiah Morrill

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 4:17:00 AM9/30/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Hasn't been changed in a looong time, but here is the resource page:


It sure would be a good time for an update!

Peter O'Hanlon

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 4:19:41 AM9/30/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Definitely - there are a lot of newer disciples who don't even have their blog listed there.
--
Peter O'Hanlon

Marlon Grech

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 4:29:16 AM9/30/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
yep I agree with Josh and all the others ... we all respect each other (actually I think here Disciples are now all friends of each other... but when it come to building a small MVVM framework I think everyone would end up fighting... hehe... It strange how a developers mind operates isn't it...


Regards
Marlon
WPF Blog - http://marlongrech.wordpress.com/
Microsoft MVP for Client App

Marlon Grech

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 4:30:38 AM9/30/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Very true Jer....

So let me do that :D anyone wants to add anything please send me an email with a title, link and an abstract and I'll add that in :)



Regards
Marlon
WPF Blog - http://marlongrech.wordpress.com/
Microsoft MVP for Client App



On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Jeremiah Morrill <jeremiah...@gmail.com> wrote:

Peter O'Hanlon

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 4:33:31 AM9/30/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
Being honest, the framework I've been playing around with came into being for two reasons:
 
1. It's a variant of the one we created for the company (which is tied to some of the internal libraries that we sell to clients so I didn't want to give the source away), but it provides some useful little features, e.g. the ability to bind to resources via the VM, making it easier to i18n an app.
2. It's a rite of passage - coding your own MVVM framework. There's a lot of cool ideas floating around, and it's great to pick and choose the bits that work for you.
--
Peter O'Hanlon

Daniel Vaughan

unread,
Sep 30, 2009, 5:28:53 AM9/30/09
to WPF Disciples
I'm blind as a bat, thanks Jer.


On Sep 30, 10:17 am, Jeremiah Morrill <jeremiah.morr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hasn't been changed in a looong time, but here is the resource page:http://wpfdisciples.wordpress.com/resources/
>
> <http://wpfdisciples.wordpress.com/resources/>It sure would be a good time
> for an update!
>

Brennon Williams

unread,
Oct 2, 2009, 3:28:03 AM10/2/09
to wpf-di...@googlegroups.com
"I know we'd all
like to see our own projects gain more visibility, and perhaps if they
are all in the one place, users will have a place to easily pick and
choose."

hence the request for permission to reference peoples blogs sites etc...
It's coming soon.

The uber collection.


-----Original Message-----
From: wpf-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:wpf-di...@googlegroups.com]

On Behalf Of Daniel Vaughan
Sent: 30 September 2009 08:57
To: WPF Disciples
Subject: [WPF Disciples] Re: A common framework, and why we don't do it

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages