Yeah I think that’ll work too. Since the name is (for all intents and purposes) private to the XAML of the UserControl itself, I usually do it this way just so the bindings are a bit more readable. I don’t know if there’s a perf benefit one way or the other.
From: Shane Morris (Automatic Studio) Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 6:42 PM To: ozWPF Cc: ozWPF Subject: Re: Child controls as dependency properties You couldn't use an ancestor/relative source binding to find the parent UC, thus Avoiding having to give the UC a specific name? Shane Shane Morris | Automatic Studio | [email protected] | +61 438 818 888 On 28/10/2011, at 5:35 PM, "Greg Keogh" <[email protected]> wrote: I generally declare my dependency property as normal, then bind to it from the UserControl itself. So let’s say you had a real DP called TitleText, I’d do something like: <UserControl ... x:Name=”me”> <TextBlock Text=”{Binding TitleText,ElementName=me}” /> ... so now the owner of the UserControl can set TitleText and it will be reflected by the child control. Thanks Matt ... fabulous! I stared at this code for some time before I realised what was happening. I didn’t think of doing it this way around. You make a typical DP for TitleText then bind the child control to “its own control”. This works, but I have to x:Name the <UserControl> and bind use that name as the ElementName exactly as you say. Cheers, Greg _______________________________________________ ozwpf mailing list [email protected] http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ ozwpf mailing list [email protected] http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf
_______________________________________________ ozwpf mailing list [email protected] http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozwpf
