C#: What is the value added by commanding?

Question

When looking into MVC frameworks for flex, as3, silverlight, and wpf... a common concept of ICommand / commanding keeps appearing... Can anyone explain the advantage of using ICommand / Execute() ?

Where I dont see the value added is - Why can't the controller map the input (ie: a click event) to the correct method inside of the model? I'm assuming it is because commanding buys you something - like removing business logic from the controller / the would-be event handler in the controller.

Thx.

Answer 1

Here's a couple of cases that demonstrate the value commands add:

1. Suppose you have a simple form with a text box and Submit button. You want a button to become enabled only if some text is entered into the text box. With commands all you have to do is to implement CanExecute method (to return true or false depending on the value in a text field) A framework will automagically disable/enable button accordingly. With code-behind (or controller) approach you'd have to write a code do enable/disable button manually.
2. Suppose later you decided you don't like the button control you used, and decide to switch to a new control (being that a button, or something more exotic) from a different library. All you have to do is make a change in XAML. Any control that supports Command binding will know what to do. In code-behind approach you'd have also modify your button click handler (since new control will probably require different event handler signature)
3. Suppose later you decide to add a checkbox to your text field that would visually indicate to user whether the content of that field is acceptable. All you have to do is to bind this new checkbox to your command's CanExecute, and now you have two controls already that would automatically change their visual appearance depending on whether form is submittable. With code-behind approach (or controller) addition of a new control would require adding more code.
4. Suppose you want to test your action. Since commands don't depend on any visual elements, and don't need them, you can easily write a unit test that will not require user clicking any buttons, or entering any text. With controller approach you'd have emulate controller's events, and mock the view.

Summarizing:

Commands provide a well-defined interface between the business logic and the presentation. Business logic implementor doesn't care about how visually certain action (e.g. command) will be implemented. He simply provides the action implementation and an ability for a presentation to query the state of the action. He doesn't care what particular UI element (or elements) will trigger that action, how exactly (in)ability to execute that action would reflect in UI, and what changes UI might go through in the future. At the same time presentation designer doesn't need to know anything about event handlers, controllers, etc. He has a Command and he plugs it in to any UI element (or elements) he chooses without the need to go to C# code at all.

Answer 2

What controller are you talking about?

The Commanding concept in Silverlight and WPF is used to tie together (through binding mostly) the UI to business logic (be it a controller/viewmodel/model/etc).

That is the point, to move the functionality of the command outside of the UI.

Example. Saving a widget in your application is probably always done the same way. Sure, you might let the user change the name, or this or that, but the overall behavior is always going to be the same. Now, in your application you might actually initiate saving a widget through a lot of different UI avenues such as Page 1 has a button on the right hand side that saves the widget on that page, Page 2 has a menu item on the top that saves the widget on that page. The UI is different but the behavior remains the same.

You can accomplish the same goal by using Event Handling (such as grabbing the click event on a button), but now you're back into the context of dealing with UI specific issues. Commanding, arguably, has a cleaner separation.