Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<p>The MVVM pattern would be a good way to go. Saying MVVM is too complicated for small teams isn't exactly accurate - the purpose of MVVM is to decouple Silverlight or WPF code. Using the codebehind of a Silverlight page to directly access data creates coupling in your code and accrues technical debt. Whether you're one developer or 100, if your UI is coupled with your data classes, if you have to change your data classes, you will have to make changes to every UI element that uses those classes. This takes longer and makes your application more difficult to change. </p> <p>MVVM makes it so your UI (the View) doesn't know anything about the data (your Model). The ViewModel is the code in between that the UI can bind to, and which manages events in the UI that need to be persisted to the Model, and also changes in the Model that need to be represented in the View. For this reason, it handles events, and that's what it sounds like you need in your code - an event that can exist off of the codebehind, that can update the Views bound to it when the data changes. If you have two pages, then an event on one of the pages will be sent to the ViewModel, which will make a change to the Model (data) if necessary, and pass it back to the ViewModel. The ViewModel would then update any of the UI elements (Views) bound to that piece of data. </p> <p>There's a REALLY good demonstration of how to implement the MVVM design pattern <a href="http://blog.lab49.com/archives/2650" rel="nofollow">here</a> . The guy goes through and takes a typical WPF application (just like Silverlight), where the UI codebehind implements event handlers that directly access data, and refactors it using the MVVM pattern. </p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload