I have doubts whether every view should have its own ViewModel or should I pass the plain model where there is no need for ViewModel? (What concerns me is that if I start to mix these two concepts, then I will end up with jungle later on)
I tried to google it but no one talks about that, every post I run into just explains the purpose of ViewModel and I know that the main purpose of ViewModel is so you can pass multiple models to view.
It depends.
In many use cases the main purpose is not to expose fields to being bound on form submission that the user shouldn't be able to update. I wouldn't slavishly create them when not needed but it depends on the developers and their level of understanding on when and why you use viewmodels vs domain/ef models. Also application code base size makes a difference.
Maybe you need select lists, maybe you want to convert some properties to different types. Lots of reasons to use them. However it is more code and mapping code even if you use a tool like AutoMapper. So they cost time to implement but maybe they fix problems and save other time? Maybe they fix a security problem? Maybe doing them all the as view models helps juniors understand? Maybe you would rather do the setup of a viewmodel at start than convert code later when it is really needed?
Consistency can help but doing a bunch of extra work may not be worthwhile. Best practice for me isn't best practice for you.
Consider the costs and benefits for your project and team . E.g. maybe your project is internal and no one is going to try to hack via adding data to submission
There are couple of reason to choose ViewModel over DomainModel.
1) First thing first is the security. Imagin you have a view for changing the password. If you pass the domain model to the view. probably you are exposing a lot of properties which is not necessary and it may cause a security problem. There is no reason to expose properties like LastLoginDate, IsActive, IsEnabled, NumberOfFailedLogin and so on for just changing the password.
2) The second reason is reducing logic from the view. If you pass a Domain class to the view, Possibly you need to add some extra logic for hiding extra properties or shape it as you like or adding logic based on the route and etc.
3) Because of the architecture. Exposing domain model to the view cause tightly coupling between your presentation layer and domain model which is not good at all.
Related
Could anyone give an example of why it would be advantageous to use MVC instead of a simpler Model and a View only.
Note: whether it's called MVC or MVP (Model-View-Presenter), I'm talking about the one where the View receives input, then the Controller will respond to the input event by interpreting the input into some action to be done by the Model. When the model changes, the View will update itself by responding to events from the model.
What is disadvantageous of simply letting the Model respond to events in the View and vice versa?
In MVC, if I changed the model in a way that affects the controller then I'll have to do changes in the controller. In Model-View, if I change the Model, I'll have to update the view.
So, it seems like we are introducing complexity by adding the "controller" part?
In MVC, the Model is blind to its environment, the view can be too - passing off (blindly) its events to the controller, which knows more about the view and model. So when all is said and done, the controller is the 'non-reusable' disposable part of the system, since it is the most context aware component.
if I changed the model in a way that affects the controller...
The the model should expose simple CRUD methods in such a way that those using the methods do not have to know anything about the passed update object, nor what really happens inside the model.
This means that the view, IMO, has to do a bit of work by creating the passed record, since Controllers are supposed to be stateless and the view is more persistent. Controllers get triggered and 'kick-in' do their work with a passed object and do not have a state.
The passed data is created by some sort of generic convention.
Let me go even further. Suppose you have a view, a tablegrid, and a control whose enabled property is dependent on item is selected in the grid -- you COULD create a view that handles both those controls and this logic internally, and that would probably be the way to go in such a simplified example.
But the more atomic your views are, the more reusable they become, so you create a view for every, yes every, control. Now you are looking at a situation where views have to know about each other in order to register themselves for the right notification...
This is where the controller steps in, since we want to stick all these dependencies onto him, the long term disposable one. So the controller manages this type of view-to-view notification scheme.
Now your views are ignorant as they can be and independent, thus reusable.
You can code a view without having to know about the system, or the 'business logic' as they like to call it. You can code a model without having to know too much about your goals (though it does help to tweak the model to enable it to return the datasets you have in mind).... but controllers, they are last and you have to have the previous two firmed up before you can wire things together.
Here is another thing to think about -- just as the Model is supposed to abstract-away and provide a generic interface to the underlying implementation of the data it is managing (the client does not know if the data comes from a DB, a file, a program setting, etc) -- the view should also abstract away the control it is using.
So, ultimately this means a view should not (caveat below) have functions/properties that look like this:
public property BackgroundColor{get;set}
Nor
public function ScrollBy(x,y){}
But instead:
public SetProp(string name, object val){}
And
public DoCmd(string name, object val){}
This is a bit contrived, and remember I said ultimately... and you ask why is this a good idea?
With reusability in mind, consider that you may one day want to port things from WinForms to, say, Flex, or simple want to use a new-fangled control library that may not expose the same abilities.
I say 'port' here, but that is really not the goal, we are not concerned with porting THIS particular app, but having the underlying MVC elements generic enough to be carried across to a new flavor -- internally, leaving a consistent and ability-independent external interface intact.
If you didn't do this, then when your new flavor comes along, all your hard references to view properties in the (potentially reusable/refactorable/extendable) controllers have to be mucked with.
This is not to mean that such generic setters and cmds have to be the interface for all your views abilities, but rather they should handle 'edge case' properties as well as the normal props/cmds you can expose in the traditional hard-link way. Think of it as an 'extended properties' handler.
That way, (contrived again), suppose you are building on a framework where your buttons no longer have buttonIcon property. Thats cool because you had the foresight to create a button view interface where buttonIcon is an extended property, and inside the view your conditional code does a no-op now when it receives the set/get.
In summary, I am trying to say that the coding goals of MVC should be to give the Model and View generic interfaces to their underlying components, so when you are coding a Controller you don't have to think to hard about who you are controlling. And while the Controllers are being (seemingly unfairly) set up to be the sacrificial lamb in the long run of re-usability -- this does not mean ALL your controllers are destined for death.
They are hopefully small, since a lot of their 'thinking' has been shoved off into semi-intelligent Models and Views and other controllers (ex: Controller to Sort a Grid or Manipulate a TreeView) -- so being small they can be easily looked at and qualified for reuse in your next project -- or cloned and tweaked to become suitable.
It actually reduces complexity by separating the workflow logic from the domain logic. It also makes it easier to write unit tests and makes your application easier to maintain and extend.
Imagine if you wanted to add a new data type. With the approach above, you would probably duplicate a lot of the workflow logic in the new class as it would be likely to be tightly coupled to the domain logic.
The discipline involved in separating the workflow logic into the controller makes it more likely that you will have fewer dependencies between workflow and domain logic. Adding a new data type would then be more simple, you create the new domain object and see how much of the controller you can reuse, e.g. by inherited from a controller super class.
It would also make it easier to change frameworks in future - the model would probably not change too much and so would be more portable.
Having said that, you might want to look into MVVM depending on what you are using as your presentation layer: Benefits of MVVM over MVC
Advantages of MVC/P (I am talking about Supervising Controller here) over MV include:
You can handle complex data binding code in the controller, if required.
You can test that complex presentation logic without a UI testing framework.
You can also have a graphic designer make your views, and not see your code, and not mess up your code when they fix your views.
After writing a few lesser programs when learning Java the way I've designed the programs is with Model-View-Control. With using MVC I have a plethora of getter methods in the model for the view to use.
It feels that while I gain on using MVC, for every new value added I have to add two new methods in the model which quickly get all cluttered with getter & setters.
So I was thinking, maybe I should use the notifyObserver method that takes an argument. But wouldn't feel very smart to send every value by itself either so I figured, maybe if I send a kind of container with all the values, preferably only those that actually changed.
What this would accomplish would be that instead of having a whole lot of getter methods I could just have one method in the model which put all relevant values in the container.
Then in the view I would have a method called from the update which extracted the values from the container and assigning them to the correct fields.
I have two questions concerning this.
First: is this actually a viable way to do this. Would you recommend me doing something along these lines?
Secondly: if I do use this plan and I don't want to keep sending fields that didn't actually change. How would I handle that without having to have if statements to check if the value is not null for every single value?
I've more familiar with the MVP paradigm, but hopefully they're similar enough to comment. While getters (and setters) in and of themselves are not necessarily evil, they are sometimes a sign that your subsystems are too strongly coupled. One really great way to decouple this is to use an event bus: see Best practices for architecting GWT apps. This allows the view to just shoot off events for the controller to listen for whenever something important happens, and the view can listen for events whenever something changes in the model that corresponds to updating the view. Ideally you wouldn't even need to ever pass the model to the view, if you can break up any changes into incremental pieces and just tell the view to change this part and then this other part.
If you feel you have too many getters (and setters) in your model class, maybe you have too many fields altogether. Is it possible that there are several distinct classes hiding within your model? If you extract these into separate classes, it may make your model more manageable.
OTOH the associated container you are thinking about could also be viable - but then why duplicate all data? You could instead use the associated container directly in the model to store all properties you can think of. And you can also pass this around for observers to get updates (preferably wrapped into an unmodifiable container, of course) - although in this setup you wouldn't need to.
In general, Java is a verbose language which expects you to put all those getters and setters (and a lot more) in place. However, any decent IDE can generate those for you with a few keypresses. Note also that you need to write them only once, and you will read and call them many many more times. Verbose also means easily readable.
If you have too many getter it's ok. But you shouldn't need the setter. The view is supposed to only read/query the model.
The MVC pattern should promote something that is asymmetric: the control update the model by calling methods in the model that embed the logic and update the sate accordingly; this respects encapsulation. The view reads/queries the model via the getters. This goes a bit against information hiding, but that's how MVC works.
I wouldn't personally pass all information in the events. It sounds complicated to me: either you end up with something that is not statically typed (e.g. you pass hashmaps), or with a plethora of typed events. I would stick with something simple, and have (possibly many) getter in the model.
I am new to MVC but I can already see its benefits and advantages. However, I have a (probably easy to answer) design question:
I have been thinking about models and debating the proper way to structure them. The way I see it there are a few options:
1) Models and table structure have a 1 to 1 relationship...meaning that pretty much for every table there is a corresponding model. The model class has attributes corresponding to the table columns and has whatever methods that are needed (like getters and setters) to manipulate data in the table in whatever way is necessary. This seems like the generic option and I guess I would then have the controller call the models as necessary to perform whatever business function is necessary.
2) Models are tied more closely to the operation of the business logic rather than the data: so for example if on the front end a deletion of a certain object affects multiple tables, the model then 'models' this behavior and interacts with several tables and performs the necessary function. The controller then simply needs to call a single model for whatever business behavior is desired. This is less generic since the models are much more tightly coupled..but seems quicker to implement.
3) Something in between the first 2 options. Or maybe I am completely missing the point.
Hopefully this makes sense! If I am not totally missing the point, I am inclined to think that option (1) is better. Any idea?
Edit: Not that it should matter, but I plan on using Codeigniter PHP MVC framework.
Both are valid implementations, and, depending on your needs, can work well.
Your #1 is essentially describing the Active Record pattern, which is used by SubSonic, Castle, and lots of other ORM implementations.
Your #2 is essentially describing the Entity Framework/Hibernate/LightSpeed approach, where you are dealing with objects that are more conceptually related to your domain rather than to tables. Instead of your objects containing foreign key ID properties, they actually contain the other domain object references, which are then instantiated in an on-access basis.
Both ways are great. The Active Record approach is usually more intuitive for beginners and has potentially less pitfalls. EF-style can save a lot of base-level coding and dealing with FK's directly in code.
Edit: To be clear, what you describe in both situations is data access layer related, rather then strictly model related. However in reality you're pretty close, as most models tend to simply represent one or more of these types of objects.
All of the above.
The approach you use depends on your design philosophy. If you prefer to design your application using business domains and drive that into the database design, then you favor the second approach. If you prefer to build your database first, and then create model classes from the database schema, then you favor the first approach. Both methods are valid ways to build software.
Number 1 is the way to go. Option 2 is really the controller's job. For example, the controller then takes the models and performs actions on them, and passes the results to the view.
Think of it this way:
Model = your data
Controller = business logic
View = display of data and actions
This is highly simplistic, but it's how I picture it in my mind when I go to design a system.
Think of the database as the Model, the business logic as the Controller, and the UI as the View. That may help. It's an overly simplified approach to things, but it gets the data / behavior separation roughly correct.
I don't think it has to be an either/or situation. Your first point is what would be called a Model, but your 2nd point sounds like a View Model, which is most often a composition of various Models and parts of Models that will be sent to the view. The controller is responsible for doing that composition and potentially decomposition when information is sent back from the View.
I've read some MVC advice in the past regarding models stating that you should not reuse the same model objects for the domain and the view; but I haven't been able to find anyone willing to discuss why this is bad.
It is my opinion that creating two separate models - one for the domain, one for the view - and then mapping between them creates a lot of duplication, plus tedious mapping code (some of which might be alleviated by things like AutoMapper) that will likely be error prone.
What makes having a separate model for the two concerns worth the trouble of duplication and mapping code?
At its heart, two models is about Separation of Concerns. I want my View to work off of a single Model. I want my Domain Model to represent the conceptual model I build with the domain experts. ViewModel often has technical constraints. Domain Model is about POCO, and not being bound by technical constraints of either data shown (View) or persisted (in a DB or otherwise).
Suppose I have three entities shown on a screen. Does that mean I need to force a relationship between the three? Or just create a ViewModel component object that contains all three items. With a separate ViewModel, View concerns are separated from my domain.
why? 'cause the view shouldn't have the ability to use the model object!
Imagine you pass the project to a web designer to do the view layer. Suddenly he/she has the ability to mess around with your application's data through the model layer. That's not good.
So always only pass the data the view needs, instead of the object with methods.
J.P. Boodhoo's article Screen Bound DTOs will help you understand the design benefit.
There is also a security benefit that I have written about.
Having a presentation model simplifies your views. This is especially important because views are typically very hard to test. By having a presentation model you move a lot of work out of the view and into the domain->presentation model. Things like formatting, handling null values and flattening object graphs.
I agree that the extra mapping is a pain but I think you probably need to try both approaches in your specific context to see what works best for you.
There are even plainer concerns including the view model's ability to be specially formatted and certainly null-safe.
I guess the idea is that your domain models might extend to other implementations, not just your MVC application and that would break the seperations of concerns principle. If your View Model IS your domain model then your domain model has two reasons to change: a domain change requirement AND a view requirement change.
Seems I have duplication of rules as well.
ie. client object validation on the UI, then mapping to domain object that has to be validated.
What I tend to do however is map my set of domain objects to create a model - ie. a webpage that shows customer info, stock info, etc... my model becomes a structure that holds a Customer object and a Stock object.
CompanyPageModel
public Customer Customer{get;}
public Stock Stock {get;}
then in my mvc project ViewData.Model.Customer.Name ViewData.Model.Stock.CurrentStocks
Separation 'seems' like more work, but later, it's good to have this division of UI/Domain model...sorta like writing tests :)
I have drunk the cool-aide finally, I do like being able to mark my viewmodel with display instructions and have that all auto wired up.
What I demand now is some kind of auto generator of viewmodels from poco entities. I always set some string as an int and it takes me forever to find it. Don't even think of doing this without automapper unless you like pain.
Question number three in my quest to properly understand MVC before I implement it:
I have two cases in mind:
The primary application
window needs to launch the
preferences window. (One View
invoking another View.)
The primary Model for an application
needs to access a property
in the preferences Model. (One Model
accessing another Model.)
These questions are related in that they both involve communication across Model-View-Controller triplets, a topic that I haven't found much discussion of in my Googling.
The obvious way to fix this is to wrap everything in a top-level "application" object that handles transactions between Models and allows Controllers to invoke one another's methods. I have seen this implemented, but I'm not convinced its a good idea. I can also see possibilities involving Controllers observing more than one Model and responding to more than one View, but this seems like its going to become very cluttered and difficult to follow.
Suggestions on how best to implement this sort of cross-talk? I feel like its a very obvious question, but I've been unable to find a well-documented solution.
On a broader note, if anyone has a link that shows typical approaches to these sorts of MVC issues, I would love to see it. I haven't had much luck finding solid, non-trivial references. Examples in Python would be lovely, but I'll gladly read anything.
Edit 1:
I see some pretty interesting things being said below and in general no-one seems to have a problem with the approach I've described. It is already almost a lazy form of the FrontController design that Vincent is describing. I certainly don't foresee any problems in implementing that pattern, however, it doesn't seem that anyone has really addressed the question in regards to communication amongst Models. All the answers seem to be addressing communication among objects in a single Model. I'm more interested in maintaining separate Models for separate components of the application, so that I'm not stuffing fifty state properties into a single Model class. Should I be maintaining them as sub-Models instead?
With respect to (1), views don't invoke other views. They invoke controller actions that may result in other views being rendered. In your case, the primary application window contains a user interface element (button, link) that invokes a controller action to display the preferences window.
With respect to (3), model components certainly could be related to one another. This isn't unexpected nor to be avoided, necessarily. For instance your Customer model may have an associated set of Orders. It would be perfectly natural to access the customer's orders via a method in the Customer class.
You might want to take a look at the MVC page on wikipedia for an overview.
You may want to consider looking up the Front Controller design pattern.
The Front Controller pattern defines a single component that is responsible for processing application requests. A front controller centralizes functions such as view selection, security, and templating, and applies them consistently across all pages or views. Consequently, when the behavior of these functions need to change, only a small part of the application needs to be changed: the controller and its helper classes.
This way all requests from the view goes to the FrontController who then decides which specific action (controller) to invoke. Sometimes, it could forward straight to another view as in your first case.
There is no problem with multiple objects in the model talking to each other. In fact that will be very common. The way I see it, all the objects in the Model act like one component to represent the data and operations on the data.
This article might help. And this one.
Model does not mean a single model object. The model is the subset of the entirety of your domain model which is directly related to the controller actions and the views in question.