Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Is there any reason why I could (or should) not declare dependency properties as non-static?
I need to make an interface with two-way bindable properties. INotifyPropertyChanged seems a little bit cumbersome on the receiving end as it relies on string identifiers.
Yes.
The Dependency Property mechanism in WPF uses a storage mechanism specified per type, not per instance. The design of DPs relies on them being defined statically, and not per instance. They will not work properly if you define them on an instance.
This is partly done to allow inheritance of properties, but also allows you to specify a LOT of properties on an object without using a lot of memory per instance.
If you want to make an interface with two-way bindable properties, typically you’d want to use INotifyPropertyChanged for your class, and the dependency properties on the user interface elements to handle the bindings. INotifyPropertyChanged is the proper mechanism for this. If the major complaint is the string identifiers, you can work around them using expression trees.