@edvin brainstorming here and looking at some c# code. what do you think of using action= or command= as an object assignment as in WPF MVVM? I don't see much value in having action{} and setOnAction{} especially since setOnAction() will be familiar to plain JavaFX developers ( 😬 ), even with the async the WPF MVVM wraps up the function of a command with extra stuff like whether or not the command can be executed. If there were such an abstraction in TornadoFX, then you could do something like action=action(async=true) { // some code} the control could not only fire off the behavior but also disable itself if the action weren't capable of being executed

@edvin this c# code is the basis of what I'm talking about. "execute" is the function that tornadofx has today. canexecute is the addition which would be cue to controls public interface ICommand { void Execute(object arg); bool CanExecute(object arg) event EventHandler CanExecuteChanged; }

@carlw I think in TornadoFX, the

Action

would have a BooleanExpression for

enabled

instead of CanExecute and CanExecuteChanged, but sure, we can support this pretty easily.

yeah. also, the async can be handled in this class w a companion object task AND possibly coroutines 🙀

@carlw This means that you can probably configure commands in a controller or something and tie them to controls, right?

yeah WPF calls this command binding and it works alongside databinding which we're all familiar with

@carlw How do you tie the object in the command to a control

Example xamarin form... <Label Text="Demo 3 - Async Command with CanExecute" FontAttributes="Bold" /> <Button Text="Simulate 5 Second Download" HorizontalOptions="Center" Command="{Binding SimulateDownloadCommand}" /> <StackLayout Orientation="Horizontal"> <Label Text="Result: " /> <Label Text="{Binding SimulatedDownloadResult}" /> </StackLayout>

command= is command binding....simulateddownloadresult is databinding

that's what I'm getting at with the action= assignment

Can you show me the code for

SimulateDownloadCommand

?

How does it know what to download?

Sure. The particular example follows. Note the async task in the command class plus the await which is a kotlin coroutine

Thank you, reading

mvvmFX also has a take on command that's based on this

Hi guys, i am writing app, that utilizes some web API I need some help. I need to make request via POST method which should contain multipart/form-data.

Currently this is working version using Apache HttpClient

@User uploaded a file: Untitled

I would like to implement this with Rest module for parsing, because API returns JSON. Could not figure how to do it. Is it possible in current state of TornadoFX?

Thanks for any info 😄

@User uploaded a file: Untitled and commented: This is how I do it at the moment

@carlw How do they provide both Command and Command<T> - are they in different packages?

@carlw I'm also having trouble seeing that it's better to specify both Command= and CommandParameter= compared to just action = someAction(theParam) 🙂 Seems like just more boiler plate.

i think it actually will reduce boiler plate by making the commands more portable. The ViewModel today mediates between the data elements and the model / business logic. Commanding lets the View link up a command w/o any intervening layers without compromising the integrity (ex, the view doesn't get involved in any business logic)

OK. Let me play with this a little after Alyssa is in bed 🙂

@carlw What about Command vs Command<T>?

sure. this is not meant to be a 10 minute suggestion. but it is something i've run into with my recent MVVM impelmentations

i don't have the commanding put in so right now my viewmodels and model are a little exposed

in terms of boiler plate as pass-through entities