Skip to content
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time

Elmish.WPF Tutorial

The aim of this tutorial is to explain how to use Elmish.WPF, building in complexity from start (what is MVU?) to end (using complex bindings and applying optimizations).

This tutorial is not directly related to the many samples in the Elmish.WPF repository, but complements them well. The samples are complete, fully functional apps demonstrating selected aspects of Elmish.WPF. The samples show; the tutorial explains.

This tutorial assumes working F# knowledge. If you’re new to F#, Scott Wlaschin’s blog F# for fun and profit is a great place to start (and continue) learning the ins and outs of F# and functional programming. His book Domain Modeling Made Functional is also a great resource for learning F# (and in particular how it can be used for domain modeling). You can find many more excellent resources at

This tutorial also assumes some knowledge of WPF and MVVM.

Suggestions for improvements are welcome. For large changes, please open an issue. For small changes (e.g. typos), simply submit a PR.

Table of contents

The MVU (Elm/Elmish) architecture

MVU stands for Model-View-Update. It is a purely functional front-end architecture commonly used in Elm, a strongly typed pure functional language that compiles to JavaScript.


The “model” part of the MVU name refers to an immutable data structure that contains all the state in your app. By “all the state” we mean all the state that influences any kind of domain/business logic, and all the state that is needed to render the UI. By storing all the state in a single “atom”, data synchronization problems between different parts of the app are a thing of the past. Note that the model is concerned with domain concepts, not UI concepts. Ideally (if not always in practice), you should be able to use the same model to target different UIs using the MVU pattern (a WPF app, a React web app using Feliz, a console app using Terminal.Gui.Elmish, etc.)

For example, the type definition below may be the whole state for an app containing a single counter that you can increment/decrement by a customizable step size (the classic “hello world” of MVU apps):

type Model = {
  Count: int
  StepSize: int

The above model contains all the state that is needed to render the UI for such a simple counter app.

Additionally, in MVU, the model also comes with an init function that simply returns the app’s initial state:

let init () = {
  Count = 0
  StepSize = 1


While not part of the MVU name, the message is a central component. It’s just a type that specifies everything that can happen in your app – all the reasons your state may change (all of the “events” in the app, if you will). It’s typically modelled by a discriminated union.

For example, the type definition below may describe all the possible things that can happen in the counter app described above:

type Msg =
  | Increment
  | Decrement
  | SetStepSize of int

Messages are sent (known in the MVU world as “dispatched”) by the UI. We’ll get back to that.

As with the model, the message type is concerned with the domain, and is ideally unrelated to the UI platform.


The “update” part of the MVU name refers to the function that is responsible for updating your model in response to incoming messages. It has the signature 'msg -> 'model -> 'model. In other words, it is a pure function that accepts a message (something that happened) and the old state, and returns the new state.

For example, for the counter app we have defined the model and message types for, the update function will look like this:

let update (msg: Msg) (model: Model) : Model =
  match msg with
  | Increment -> { model with Count = model.Count + model.StepSize}
  | Decrement -> { model with Count = model.Count - model.StepSize}
  | SetStepSize i -> { model with StepSize = i }  

View in standard MVU (not Elmish.WPF)

This is where MVU frameworks will differ, since every UI technology is different.

At its core, view is a function that accepts 1) a model and 2) a function to dispatch messages, and returns something that specifies how the UI will be rendered. This may in theory be the actual UI, though that would be very inefficient. Generally, view returns a “shadow DOM” (a cheap object graph reflecting the UI) that the framework will intelligently compare with the actual UI so that only the changed parts of the UI will be updated.

In other words: In MVU, the UI is simply a function of the current model.

For example, the function below shows how the UI function might look like for the counter app above (using an imaginary UI library/syntax):

let view (model: Model) (dispatch: Msg -> unit) =
    Children = [
      Paragraph(Text = sprintf "Current count: %i" model.Count)
        Label = "Step size",
        Value = model.StepSize,
        OnChange = fun value -> dispatch (SetStepSize value)
        Text = "Decrement",
        OnClick = fun () -> dispatch Decrement
        Text = "Increment",
        OnClick = fun () -> dispatch Increment

Note that the core Elmish library defines the following type alias:

type Dispatch<'msg> = 'msg -> unit

Therefore, you will normally see dispatch typed as Dispatch<'msg> instead of 'msg -> unit.

View in Elmish.WPF

The view example above shows dynamic views, which is how “proper” MVU works. Creating views as a simple function of the model is a very powerful technique, is conceptually very simple, and allows for good composability.

In Elmish.WPF, however, the views are defined externally in XAML. The UI is static and is not defined or changed by the view code; hence, Elmish.WPF is said to use static views.

You set up bindings in the XAML views as you normally would if using MVVM. Then, in the view function, you use Elmish.WPF to declaratively create a “view model” of sorts that contain the data the view will bind to. Therefore the view function is normally called bindings in Elmish.WPF.

For example, the counter app may look like this:

let bindings () : Binding<Model, Msg> list = [
  "CounterValue" |> Binding.oneWay (fun m -> m.Count)
  "Increment" |> Binding.cmd Increment
  "Decrement" |> Binding.cmd Decrement
  "StepSize" |> Binding.twoWay(
    (fun m -> float m.StepSize),
    (int >> SetStepSize)

The actual bindings will be explained in detail later, but explained simply, the code above will create a view-model with:

  • an int get-only property CounterValue returning model.Count
  • two get-only properties Increment and Decrement that are ICommands that can always execute and, when executed, dispatches the Increment and Decrement messages, respectively
  • a float get-set property StepSize returning model.StepSize and which, when set, dispatches the SetStepSize message with the number

Another important difference between normal MVU view functions and Elmish.WPF’s update function is that view is called every time the model has been updated, whereas bindings is only called once, when the “view model” is initialized. After that, it is the functions used in the bindings themselves that are called when the model is updated. Therefore, bindings do not accept a model or dispatch parameter. The model is instead passed separately in each binding, and the dispatch isn’t visible at all; you simply specify the message to be dispatched, and Elmish.WPF will take care of dispatching the message.

Commands (and subscriptions)

This is yet another part of MVU that is not in the name. Not to be confused with WPF’s ICommand, the command in MVU is the only way you do side effects.

Think about it: If the update function must be pure, how can we do side effects like making an HTTP call or reading from disk? Or alternatively, if we decided to make update impure (which is possible in F#, but not in Elm) and do some long-running IO there, wouldn’t that block the whole app (since the update loop can only process one message at a time for concurrency reasons)?

The answer is that there are actually two variants of the update function: For very simple apps, as shown above, you can use the simple update version that just returns the new model. For more complex apps that need to use commands, the update function can return both the new model and a command in a tuple:

update: 'msg -> 'model -> 'model * Cmd<'msg>

What is a Cmd<'msg>, you ask? It’s simply the “top level” of three type aliases:

type Dispatch<'msg> = 'msg -> unit
type Sub<'msg> = Dispatch<'msg> -> unit
type Cmd<'msg> = Sub<'msg> list

We have encountered Dispatch<'msg> previously. It is the type of the dispatch argument to the normal MVU view function. It is simply an alias for a function that accepts a message and sends it to the MVU framework so that it ends up being passed into update.

The next alias, Sub<'msg> (short for “subscription”) is simply a function that accepts a dispatcher and returns unit. This function can then dispatch whatever messages it wants whenever it wants, e.g. by setting up event subscriptions.

For example, here is such a function that, when called, will start dispatching a SetTime message every second. The whole timerTick function (without applying dispatch) has the signature Sub<Msg>:

let timerTick (dispatch: Dispatch<Msg>) =
  let timer = new System.Timers.Timer(1000.)
  timer.Elapsed.Add (fun _ -> dispatch (SetTime DateTimeOffset.Now))

This is the kind of function that you pass to Program.withSubscription, which allows you to start arbitrary non-UI message dispatchers when the app starts. For example, you can start timers (as shown above), subscribe to other non-UI events, start a MailboxProcessor, etc.

The final alias, Cmd<'msg>, is just a list of Sub<'msg>, i.e. a list of Dispatch<'msg> -> unit functions. In other words, the update function can return a list of Dispatch<'msg> -> unit functions that the MVU framework will execute by providing a dispatch function. These functions, as you saw above, can then dispatch any message at any time. Therefore, if you need to do impure stuff such as calling a web API, you simply create a function accepting dispatch, perform the work within it, and then use the dispatch argument (provided by the MVU framework) to dispatch further messages (e.g. representing the result of the action) into the MVU event loop.

In other words, the Cmd<'msg> returned by update will be invoked by the MVU framework. From the point of view of your model, everything happens asynchronously: the MVU update loop executes the command and continues without waiting for it to complete, and the command may dispatch future messages into the event loop at any time.

For example:

  • The user clicks a button to log in, which dispatches a SignInRequested message
  • The update function returns a new model with an IsBusy = true value (which can be used to show an animation such as a spinner) as well as a command that asynchronously calls the API and, when the API responds, dispatches a message representing the response (e.g. SignInSuccessful or SignInFailed).
  • The MVU framework updates the view using the new model and invokes the command by executing each function in the list with a dispatch function.
  • The app continues to work as normal - the spinner spins because IsBusy = true and any other messages are processed as normal. Note that you are of course free to process messages differently based on the fact that IsBusy = true. For example, you may choose to ignore additional SignInRequested messages.
  • When the API call finally returns, and the function that called the API uses its dispatch argument to dispatch a suitable message (e.g. SignInSuccessful or SignInFailed).

Elmish has several helpers in the Cmd module to easily create commands from normal functions, but if they don’t suit your use-case, you can always write a command directly as a list of Dispatch<'msg> -> unit functions.

Some MVU tips for beginners

Normalize your model; use IDs instead of duplicating entities

It is generally recommended that you aggressively normalize your model. This is because everything is (normally) immutable, so if a single entity occurs multiple places in your model and that entity should be updated, it must be updated every place it occurs. This increases the chance of introducing state synchronization bugs.

For example, say you have an app that can display a list of books, and you can click on a book in the list to open a detail view of that book. You might think to represent it with the following model:

type Model = {
  Books: Book list
  DetailView: Book option

However, what if you now want to edit a book? The book may exist in two places – both in the list, and in the DetailView property.

A better solution is to have the list be the only place to store the Book objects, and then simply refer to books by ID everywhere else:

type Model = {
  Books: Book list
  DetailView: BookId option

(You don’t have to use list; often it will make sense to have Map<BookId, Book> to easily and efficiently get a book by its ID.)

This principle also extends to data in messages: If you have a choice between passing an entity ID and a complete entity object in a message, using an entity ID will usually be the better choice (even if it may not be immediately obvious).

Use commands for anything impure

Keep the XAML (and any code-behind) focused on the view, keep bindings focused on bindings, and keep your model and update pure. If you need to do anything impure, that's what Command is for, whether it's writing to disk, connecting to a DB, calling a web API, talking to actors, or anything else. All impure operations can be implemented using commands.

Note that there's nothing stopping you from having mutable state outside your model. For example, if you have persistent connections (e.g. SignalR) that you need to start and stop during the lifetime of your app, you can define them elsewhere and use them in commands from your update. If you need an unknown number of them, such as one connection per item in a list in your model, you can store them in a dictionary or similar, keyed by the item's ID. This allows you to create, dispose, and remove items according to the data in your model.

Child components and scaling

When starting out with MVU, it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking ahead and wondering “how can I split my model/message/update/view into separate components?” For example, if you have two separate “pages” in your app, you might be inclined to think that each page should have its own separate model, message, update, and view. While this technique is needed with many other non-MVU architectures, it is often counterproductive in MVU.

Before delving into the problems, let’s see how it’s done:

module Child =
  type Model = { ... }
  type Msg = ...
  let update msg model = ...
module Parent =

  type Model = {
    Child: Child.Model

  type Msg =
    | ChildMsg of Child.Msg

  let update msg model =
    match msg with
    | ChildMsg of childMsg -> { model with Child = Child.update childMsg model }

As you can see, there’s some boilerplate involved in the parent component: You must have a model field for the child model, a wrapping message case for the child message, and an update branch that passes the child message on to the child model.

Now for the problems.

One important problem is that often, “child components” are not in fact separate from their parents, but need access to some of the parent state. Continuing the book example above, say that you want to split the app into a “list component” and a “detail component” with separate models. If you want to have auto-complete of author names when editing a book in the detail component, you need access to the list all books. The only way to accomplish that reliably is to have the complete book list in the child component, too. But that means that every time you update a book, you need to remember to update it in the child component, too. This incurs boilerplate for every piece of duplicated state (since you must have a child message case for updating each piece of duplicated state), and, again, easily causes state synchronization bugs.

Another important problem, again following from the fact that the components are often not separate, is that a child component might need to communicate with its parent. For example, when saving a book, the parent component needs to get the updated book in a message, but the child component can only dispatch its child message type. There are ways to solve this (e.g. make the child update also return a separate “parent message” type, or have the parent intercept certain child messages), but all of them are usually unnecessary complications and not without drawbacks.

What should you do instead, then? The answer is, simply put, to scale the model/message/update/view separately, and only when needed. It is highly recommended that you read the following reddit thread replies by user rtfeldman:

Optimize easily with memoization

First: Never optimize prematurely. Only optimize if you can actually measure that a certain piece of code is giving you problems.

That said: Since everything in MVU is just (pure) functions, functions, and more functions, memoization is a technique that will allow you to easily skip work if inputs are equal. Memoization is simply about storing the inputs and outputs, and if the function is called with a known value, the already computed result is returned. If not, the result is computed by calling the actual function, and the result is stored to be reused later.

In general, there are several ways to memoize: You can memoize all inputs/outputs (may be memory heavy), or just the latest; you can memoize based on structural comparison of inputs (may be expensive), or use referential equality. In MVU architectures, you often need to ensure that when you use parts of your model to compute a result, you only compute the result once until the input changes. Specifically, you might not care about remembering old values, because generally these will never be used. In that case, you can often get very far with this general memoization implementation that memoizes only the last computed value and stores it using the input reference (which works because everything is normally immutable):

let memoize (f: 'a -> 'b) : 'a -> 'b =
  let mutable inputOutput = None
  fun x ->
    match inputOutput with
    | Some (x', res) when LanguagePrimitives.PhysicalEquality x x' -> res
    | _ ->
        let res = f x
        inputOutput <- Some (x, res)


let myExpensiveFun x = ...

let myExpensiveFunMemoized = memoize myExpensiveFun

Then you simply call myExpensiveFunMemoized instead of myExpensiveFun in the rest of your code.

It is important that myExpensiveFunMemoized is defined without arguments to ensure that memoize is applied only once. If you had written

let myExpensiveFunMemoized x = memoize myExpensiveFun x

then a new memoized version would be created each for each call, which defeats the purpose of memoizing it in the first place.

Furthermore, the implementation above only memoizes functions with a single input. If you need more parameters, you need to create memoize2, memoize3, etc. (You could also pass a single tuple argument, but that will never be referentially equal, so you’d need to use structural comparison instead. That might be prohibitively expensive if the input is, say, a large collection of domain objects. Alternatively you might use functionality similar to Elmish.WPF’s elmEq helper, which is explained later.)

Getting started with Elmish.WPF

The readme has a “getting started” section that will have you up and running quickly with a simple skeleton solution.

The Elmish.WPF bindings

The Elmish.WPF bindings can be categorized into the following types:

  • One-way bindings, for when you want to bind to a simple value.
  • Two-way bindings, for when you want to bind to a simple value as well as update this value by dispatching a message. Used for inputs, checkboxes, sliders, etc. Can optionally support validation (e.g. provide an error message using INotifyDataErrorInfo that can be displayed when an input is not valid).
  • Command bindings, for when you want a message to be dispatched when something happens (e.g. a button is clicked).
  • Sub-model bindings, for when you want to bind to a complex object that has its own bindings.
  • Sub-model window bindings, for when you want to control the opening/closing/hiding of new windows.
  • Sub-model sequence bindings, for when you want to bind to a collection of complex objects, each of which has its own bindings.
  • Other bindings not fitting into the categories above
  • Lazy bindings, optimizations of various other bindings that allow skipping potentially expensive computations if the input is unchanged

Additionally, there is a section explaining how most dispatching bindings allow you to wrap the dispatcher to support debouncing/throttling etc.

One-way bindings

Relevant sample: SingleCounter

One-way bindings are used when you want to bind to a simple value.

In the counter example mentioned previously, the binding to the counter value is a one-way binding:

"CounterValue" |> Binding.oneWay (fun m -> m.Count)

In XAML, the binding can look like this:

<TextBlock Text="{Binding CounterValue, StringFormat='Counter value: {0}'}" />

A one-way binding simply accepts a function get: 'model -> 'a that retrieves the value to be displayed.

Binding to option-wrapped values

In F#, it’s common to model missing values using the Option type. However, WPF uses null and doesn’t know how to handle the F# Option type. You could simply convert from Option to null (or Nullable<_>) in the get function using Option.toObj (or Option.toNullable), but this is such a common scenario that Elmish.WPF has a variant of the one-way binding called oneWayOpt with this behavior built-in. The oneWayOpt binding accepts a function get: 'model -> 'a option. If it returns None, the UI will receive null. If it returns Some, the UI will receive the inner value.

Two-way bindings

Relevant sample: SingleCounter

Two-way bindings are commonly used for any kind of input (textboxes, checkboxes, sliders, etc.). The two-way bindings accept two functions: A function get: 'model -> 'a just like the one-way binding, and a function set: 'a -> 'model -> 'msg that accepts the UI value to be set and the current model, and returns the message to be dispatched.

In the counter example above, the two-way binding to the slider value may look like this:

"StepSize" |> Binding.twoWay(
  (fun m -> float m.StepSize),
  (fun v m -> SetStepSize (int v))

The corresponding XAML may look like this:

  Value="{Binding StepSize}"
  IsSnapToTickEnabled="True" />

The WPF slider’s value is a float, but in the model we use an int. Therefore the binding’s get function must convert the model’s integer to a float, and conversely, the binding’s “setter” must convert the UI value from a float to an int.

You might think that the get function doesn’t have to cast to float. However, 'a is the same in both get and set, and if you return int in get, then Elmish.WPF expects the value coming from the UI (which is obj) to also be int, and will try to unbox it to int when being set. Since it actually is a float, this will fail.

It’s common for the set function to rely only on the value to be set, not on the model. Therefore, the two-way binding also has an overload where the set function accepts only the value, not the model. This allows a more shorthand notation:

"StepSize" |> Binding.twoWay(
  (fun m -> float m.StepSize),
  (int >> SetStepSize)

Binding to option-wrapped values

Just like one-way bindings, there is a variant of the two-way binding for option-wrapped values. The option wrapping is used in both get and set. Elmish.WPF will convert both ways between a possibly null raw value and an option-wrapped value.

Using validation with two-way bindings

Relevant sample: Validation

You might want to display validation errors when the input is invalid. The best way to do this in WPF is through INotifyDataErrorInfo. Elmish.WPF supports this directly through the twoWayValidate bindings. In addition to get and set, this binding also accepts a third parameter that returns the error string to be displayed. This can be returned as string option (where None indicates no error), or Result<_, string> (where Ok indicates no error; this variant might allow you to easily reuse existing validation functions you have).

Keep in mind that by default, WPF controls do not display errors. To display errors, either use 3rd party controls/styles (such as MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit) or add your own styles (the Validation sample in this repo demonstrates this).

There are also variants of the two-way validating bindings for option-wrapped values.

Command bindings

Relevant sample: SingleCounter

Command bindings are used whenever you use Command/CommandParameter in XAML, such as for button clicks.

For example, for the counter app we have been looking at, the XAML binding to execute a command when the “Increment” button is clicked might look like this:

<Button Command="{Binding Increment}" Content="+" />

The corresponding Elmish.WPF binding that dispatches Msg.Increment when the command is executed generally looks like this:

"Increment" |> Binding.cmd (fun m -> Increment)

The binding accepts a single function exec: 'model -> 'msg that accepts the current model and returns the message to be dispatched. Elmish.WPF will convert the message to an ICommand that dispatches the message when the command is invoked.

For convenience, if you don’t need the model, there is also an overload that directly accepts the message (instead of a model-accepting function). The above can therefore be written like this:

"Increment" |> Binding.cmd Increment

Conditional commands (where you control CanExecute)

Relevant sample: SingleCounter

A command may not always be executable. As you might know, WPF’s ICommand interface contains a CanExecute method that, if false, will cause WPF to disable the bound control (e.g. the button).

In the counter example, we might want to prohibit negative numbers, disabling the Decrement button when the model.Count = 0. This can be written using cmdIf:

"Decrement" |> Binding.cmdIf (
  (fun m -> Decrement),
  fun m -> m.Count >= 0

There are several ways to indicate that a command can‘t execute. The cmdIf binding has overloads for the following:

  • exec: 'model -> 'msg option, where the command is disabled if exec returns None
  • exec: 'model -> Result<'msg, _>, where the command is disabled if exec returns Error
  • exec: 'model -> 'msg * canExec: 'model -> bool (as the example above shows), where the command is disabled if canExec returns false (and as with cmd, there is also an overload where exec is simply the message to dispatch)

Using the CommandParameter

Relevant sample: UiBoundCmdParam

There may be times you need to use the XAML CommandParameter property. You then need to use Elmish.WPF’s cmdParam binding, which works exactly like cmd but where exec function accepts the command parameter as its first parameter.

There is also cmdParamIf which combines cmdParam and cmdIf, allowing you to override the command’s CanExecute.

Sub-model bindings

Relevant sample: SubModel

Sub-model bindings are used when you want to bind to a complex object that has its own bindings. In MVVM, this happens when one of your view-model properties is another view model with its own properties the UI can bind to.

Perhaps the most compelling use-case for sub-models is when binding the ItemsSource of a ListView or similar. Each item in the collection you bind to is a view-model with its own properties that is used when rendering each item. However, the same principles apply when there’s only a single sub-model. Collections are treated later; this section focuses on a single sub-model.

The subModel binding has three overloads, increasing in complexity depending on how much you need to customize the sub-bindings.

Level 1: No separate message type or customization of model for sub-bindings

This is sufficient for many purposes. The overload accepts two parameters:

  • getSubModel: 'model -> 'subModel to obtain the sub-model
  • bindings: unit -> Binding<'model * 'subModel, 'msg> list, the bindings for the sub-model

In other words, inside the sub-bindings, the model parameter (in each binding) is a tuple with the parent model and the sub-model.

For example, let’s say that we have an app where a counter is a part of the app. We might do this:

"Counter" |> Binding.subModel(
	(fun m -> m.Counter),  // Counter is an object with Count, StepSize, etc.
  (fun () -> [
  	"CounterValue" |> Binding.oneWay (fun (parent, counter) -> counter.Count)
  	"Increment" |> Binding.cmd IncrementCounter

As you can see, inside the sub-bindings (which could be extracted to their own bindings function), the model parameter is a tuple containing the parent state as well as the sub-model state. This is a good default because it’s the most general signature, allowing you access to everything from the parent as well as the sub-model you are binding to. (This is particularly important for sub-model sequence bindings, which are described later.)

Note also that the sub-bindings still use the top-level message type. There is no separate child message type for the sub-model; IncrementCounter is a case of the parent message type. This is also a good default for the reasons described in the earlier “child components and scaling” section.

Level 2: Separate message type but no customization of model for sub-bindings

This overload is just like the first one except it has an additional parameter to transform the message type:

  • getSubModel: 'model -> 'subModel to obtain the sub-model
  • toMsg: 'subMsg -> 'msg to wrap the child message in a parent message
  • bindings: unit -> Binding<'model * 'subModel, 'subMsg> list, the bindings for the sub-model

This is useful if you want to use a separate message type in the sub-model bindings. For the toMsg parameter, you would typically pass a parent message case that wraps the child message type. For example:

"Counter" |> Binding.subModel(
	(fun m -> m.Counter),
  (fun () -> [
  	"CounterValue" |> Binding.oneWay (fun (parent, counter) -> counter.Count)
  	"Increment" |> Binding.cmd Increment

Here, Increment is a case of the child message type, and CounterMsg is a parent message case that wraps the counter message type.

If you had passed id as the toMsg parameter, you would have the same behavior as the previous simpler overload with no toMsg.

Level 3: Separate message type and arbitrary customization of model for sub-bindings

This is the most complex one, and is required for the following cases:

  • recursive models
  • proper “child components” with their own model/update/bindings unrelated to their parent

The reasons it’s required for these cases are described further below.

It’s also nice to have if you simply want to “clean up” or otherwise customize the model used in the bindings (e.g. if you don’t need the parent model, only the child model).

Compared to the “level 2” overload, it has one additional parameter, toBindingModel. All the parameters are:

  • getSubModel: 'model -> 'subModel to obtain the sub-model
  • toBindingModel: ('model * 'subModel) -> 'bindingModel to transform the default binding model to whatever you want
  • toMsg: 'bindingMsg -> 'msg to wrap the message used in the sub-model bindings in a parent message
  • bindings: unit -> Binding<'bindingModel, 'bindingMsg> list, the bindings for the sub-model

Continuing with the counter example above, it could look like this:

"Counter" |> Binding.subModel(
	(fun m -> m.Counter),
	(fun (parent, counter) -> counter)
  (fun () -> [
  	"CounterValue" |> Binding.oneWay (fun counter -> counter.Count)
  	"Increment" |> Binding.cmd Increment

As you see, we transform the default (parent, counter) tuple into just the counter, so that the model used in the sub-bindings is only the 'subModel. Otherwise the example is the same. If you had passed id to toBindingModel and toMsg, you would end up with the same behavior as the simplest variant without toBindingModel and toMsg.

The model transformation allowed by this overload is required for a proper, separate “child component” with its own model/message/bindings, because the child component’s bindings would of course not know anything about any parent model. I.e., as demonstrated above, you need the model to be just 'subModel and not 'model * 'subModel

The model transformation is also required for recursive bindings. Imagine that a counter can contain another counter (in a ChildCounter property). You would define the (recursive) counter bindings as:

let rec counterBindings () : Binding<CounterModel, CounterMsg> list = [
  	"CounterValue" |> Binding.oneWay (fun m -> m.Count)
  	"Increment" |> Binding.cmd Increment
  	"ChildCounter" |> Binding.subModel(
      (fun m -> m.ChildCounter),
      (fun (parent, counter) -> counter)

If you could not transform (parent, counter) “back” to counter, you could not reuse the same bindings, and hence not create recursive bindings.

Recursive bindings are demonstrated in the SubModelSeq sample.

You now have the power to create child components. Use it with great care; as mentioned in the earlier “child components and scaling” section, such separation will often do more harm than good.

Optional and “sticky” sub-model bindings

Relevant sample: SubModelOpt

You can also use the subModelOpt binding. The signature is the same as the variants described above, except that getSubModel returns 'subModel option. The UI will receive null when the sub-model is None.

Additionally, these bindings have an optional sticky: bool parameter. If true, Elmish.WPF will “remember” and return the most recent non-null sub-model when the getSubModel returns None. This can be useful for example when you want to animate away the UI for the sub-component when it’s set to None. If you do not use sticky, the UI will be cleared at the start of the animation, which may look weird.

Sub-model window bindings

Relevant sample: NewWindow

The subModelWin binding is a variant of subModelOpt that allows you to control the opening/closing/hiding of new windows. It has the same overloads as subModel and subModelOpt, with two key differences: First, the sub-model is wrapped in a custom type called WindowState that is defined like this:

type WindowState<'model> =
  | Closed
  | Hidden of 'model
  | Visible of 'model

By wrapping the sub-model in WindowState.Hidden or WindowState.Visible or returning WindowState.Closed, you control the opening, closing, showing, and hiding of a window whose DataContext will be automatically set to the wrapped model. Check out the NewWindow sample to see it in action.

Secondly, all overloads have the following parameter:

getWindow: 'model -> Dispatch<'msg> -> #Window

This is what’s actually called to create the window. You have access to the current model as well as the dispatch in case you need to set up message-dispatching event subscriptions for the window.

Additionally, all subModelWin overloads have two optional parameters. The first is ?onCloseRequested: 'msg. Returning WindowState.Closed is the only way to close the window. In order to support closing using external mechanisms (the Close/X button, Alt+F4, or System Menu -> Close), this parameter allows you to specify a message that will be dispatched for these events. You can then react to this message by updating your state so that the binding returns WindowState.Closed

The second optional parameter is ?isModal: bool. This specifies whether the window will be shown modally (using window.ShowDialog, blocking the rest of the UI) or non-modally (using window.Show).

Again, check out the NewWindow sample to see subModelWin in action.

Sub-model sequence bindings

Relevant sample: SubModelSeq

If you understand subModel, then subModelSeq isn’t much more complex. It has similar overloads, but instead of returning a single sub-model, you return #seq<'subModel>. Furthermore, all overloads have an additional parameter getId (which for the “level 1” and “level 2” overloads has signature 'subModel -> 'id) that gets a unique identifier for each model. This identifier must be unique among all sub-models in the collection, and is used to know which items to add, remove, re-order, and update.

The toMsg parameter in the “level 2” and “level 3” overloads has the signature 'id * 'subMsg -> 'msg (compared with just 'subMsg -> 'msg for subModel). For this parameter you would typically use a parent message case that wraps both the child ID and the child message. You need the ID to know which sub-model it came from, and thus which sub-model to pass the message along to.

Finally, in the “level 3” overload that allows you to transform the model used for the bindings, the getId parameter has signature 'bindingModel -> 'id (instead of 'subModel -> 'id for the two simpler overloads).

Other bindings

There are two special bindings not yet covered.


Relevant sample: SubModelSelectedItem

The section on model normalization made it clear that it’s better to use IDs than complex objects in messages. This means that for bindings to the selected value of a ListBox or similar, you’ll likely have better luck using SelectedValue and SelectedValuePath rather than SelectedItem.

Unfortunately some selection-enabled WPF controls only have SelectedItem and do not support SelectedValue and SelectedValuePath. Using SelectedItem is particularly cumbersome in Elmish.WPF since the value is not your sub-model, but an instance of the Elmish.WPF view-model. To help with this, Elmish.WPF provides the subModelSelectedItem binding.

This binding works together with a subModelSeq binding in the same binding list, and allows you to use the subModelSeq binding’s IDs in your model while still using SelectedItem from XAML. For example, if you use subModelSeq to display a list of books identified by a BookId, the subModelSelectedItem binding allows you to use SelectedBook: BookId in your model.

The subModelSelectedItem binding has the following parameters:

  • subModelSeqBindingName: string, where you identify the binding name for the corresponding subModelSeq binding
  • get: 'model -> 'id option, where you return the ID of the sub-model in the subModelSeq binding that should be selected
  • set: 'id option -> 'msg, where you return the message to dispatch when the selected item changes (typically this will be a message case wrapping the ID).

You bind the SelectedItem of a control to the subModelSelectedItem binding. Then, Elmish.WPF will take care of the following:

  • When the UI retrieves the selected item, Elmish.WPF gets the ID using get, looks up the correct view-model in the subModelSeq binding identified by subModelSeqBindingName, and returns that view-model to the UI.
  • When the UI sets the selected item (which it sets to an Elmish.WPF view-model), Elmish.WPF calls set with the ID of the sub-model corresponding to that view-model.


Relevant sample: OneWaySeq

In some cases, you might want to have a one-way binding not to a single, simple value, but to a potentially large collection of simple values. If you use oneWay for this, the entire list will be replaced and re-rendered each time the model updates.

In the special case that you want to bind to a collection of simple (can be bound to directly) and distinct values, you can use oneWaySeq. This will ensure that only changed items are replaced/moved.

The oneWaySeq binding has the following parameters:

  • get: 'model -> #seq<'a>, to retrieve the collection
  • itemEquals: 'a -> 'a -> bool, to determine whether an item has changed
  • getId: 'a -> 'id, to track which items are added, removed, re-ordered, and changed

If the values are not simple (e.g. not strings or numbers), then you can instead use subModelSeq to set up separate bindings for each item. And if the values are not distinct (i.e., can not be uniquely identified in the collection), then Elmish.WPF won’t be able to track which items are moved, and you can’t use this optimization.

Note that you can always use subModelSeq instead of oneWaySeq (the opposite is not true.) The oneWaySeq binding is slightly simpler than subModelSeq if the elements are simple values that can be bound to directly.

Lazy bindings

Note: Lazy bindings may get a complete overhaul soon; see #143.

You may find yourself doing potentially expensive work in one-way bindings. To facilitate simple optimization in these cases, Elmish.WPF provides the bindings oneWayLazy, oneWayOptLazy, and oneWaySeqLazy. The difference between these and their non-lazy counterparts is that they have two extra parameters: equals and map .

The optimization is done at two levels. The first optimization is for the update process. As with the non-lazy bindings, the initial get function is called. For the lazy bindings, this should be cheap; it should basically just return what you need from from the model (e.g. a single item or a tuple or record with multiple items). Then, equals is used to compare the output of get with the previous output of get. If equals returns true, the rest of the update process is skipped entirely. If equals returns false, the output of get is passed to map, which may be expensive, and then the binding is updated normally.

The second optimization is when the UI retrieves the value. The output of map is cached, so if the UI attempts to retrieve a value multiple times, map is still only called once. Contrast this the non-lazy bindings, where get is called each time the value is retrieved by the UI.

Elmish.WPF provides two helpers you can often use as the equals parameter: refEq and elmEq.

  • refEq is a good choice if get returns a single item (not an inline-created tuple, record, or other wrapper) from your model. It is simply an alias for LanguagePrimitives.PhysicalEquality (which is essentially Object.ReferenceEquals with better typing). Since the Elmish model is generally immutable, a reference equality check for the output of get is a very efficient way to short-circuit the update process. It may cause false negatives if two values are structurally equal but not referentially equal, but this should not be a common case, and structural equality may be prohibitively expensive if comparing e.g. large lists, defeating the purpose.
  • elmEq is a good choice if get returns multiple items from the model wrapped inline in a tuple or record. It will compare each member of the get return value separately (i.e. each record field, or each tuple item). Reference-typed members will be compared using reference equality, and string members and value-typed members will be compared using structural equality.

You may pass any function you want for equals; it does not have to be one of the above. For example, if you want structural comparison (note the caveat above however), you can pass (=).

Mapping Bindings

Sometimes duplicate mapping code exists across several bindings. The duplicate mappings could be from the parent model to a common child model or it could be the wrapping of a child message in a parent message, which might depend on the parent model. The duplicate mapping code can be extracted and written once using the mapping functions mapModel, mapMsg, and mapMsgWithModel.

Example use of mapModel and mapMsg

Here is a simple example that uses these model and message types.

type ChildModel =
  { GrandChild1: GrandChild1
    GrandChild2: GrandChild2 }

type ChildMsg =
  | SetGrandChild1 of GrandChild1
  | SetGrandChild2 of GrandChild2

type ParentModel =
  { Child: ChildModel }
type ParentMsg =
  | ChildMsg of ChildMsg

It is possible to create bindings from the parent to the two grandchild fields, but there is duplicate mapping code.

let parentBindings () : Binding<ParentModel, ParentMsg> list = [
  "GrandChild1" |> Binding.twoWay((fun parent -> parent.Child.GrandChild1), SetGrandChild1 >> ChildMsg)
  "GrandChild2" |> Binding.twoWay((fun parent -> parent.Child.GrandChild2), SetGrandChild2 >> ChildMsg)

The functions mapModel and mapMsg can remove this duplication.

let childBindings () : Binding<ChildModel, ChildMsg> list = [
  "GrandChild1" |> Binding.twoWay((fun child -> child.GrandChild1), SetGrandChild1)
  "GrandChild2" |> Binding.twoWay((fun child -> child.GrandChild2), SetGrandChild2)

let parentBindings () : Binding<ParentModel, ParentMsg> list =
  childBindings ()
  |> Bindings.mapModel (fun parent -> parent.Child)
  |> Bindings.mapMsg ChildMsg

Benefit for design-time view models

With such duplicate mapping code extracted, it is easier to create a design-time view model for the XAML code containing the bindings to GrandChild1 and GrandChild2. Specifically, instead of creating the design-time view model from the parentBindings bindings, it can now be created from the childBindings bindings. The SubModelSeq sample uses this benefit to create a design-time view model for Counter.xaml.

Theory behind mapModel and mapMsg

A binding in Elmish.WPF is represented by an instance of type Binding<'model, 'msg>. It is a profunctor, which means that

  • it is a contravariant functor in 'model with mapModel as the corresponding mapping function for this functor and
  • it is a covariant functor in 'msg with mapMsg as the corresponding mapping function for this functor.

Additional resources

The Elmish.WPF readme contains

  • a “getting started” section that will get you quickly up and running
  • a FAQ with miscellaneous useful information