Here is the thing! At the company where I work there are two applications builted in MVC, one of these is used for loguin and some special funtionalities and the other one is used for global user's (I don't realy know why there are two applications. I think it most be just one).
Well, that is the context, now what I need to do is to pass a model from one application to the other, the problem is that I need to do it in the Action method to another Action method. The only method I found to do it is Redirect() but it only receive an url string and I can't pass query string's.
Is there a way to pass an encrypted model(I'm not sure if encrypted is the right word, but I think you know what I mean)?
Related
A topic about single action controllers is in the laravel documentation:
https://laravel.com/docs/5.5/controllers#single-action-controllers
My question is, what is the use case where you will use this controllers? How will you structure your controllers if you opt to use single action controllers for all your controllers?
Michale Dyrynda seems to sum up the pupose of Single Action Controllers in his blog: https://dyrynda.com.au/blog/single-action-controllers-in-laravel
Conclusion
Single action controllers are an effective way to wrap up simple functionality into clearly named classes.
They can be used in instances where you're not necessarily following a RESTful approach; be careful not to separate multiple actions for a single entity across multiple controllers.
Where you might have previously used a single controller for multiple static pages, you could consider separate named controllers for each static pages.
You can add other methods to this class, but they should be related to the single action this controller is responsible for.
He also states that, you should only use these when you only need a single action for an entity:
You may consider naming the controller ShowPost as a way of being explicit about the controller's intent but I'd suggest caution with this approach; if you start seeing ShowPost, EditPost, CreatePost, etc controllers creeping into your codebase, I'd reconsider the RESTful approach. More controllers never hurt anybody, but we should be smart about when this is done!
This is an intresting question and my answer is not related to laravel, but to the single vs multiple actions per controller.
I have found when trying to find the use case for a pattern that is new, is to ask the inverse questions, in this case, when is the use case of multiple actions per controller make sense?
The answer usualy comes to:
You have an object that has crud operations (because your using sql)
and its convenient to place all the stuff related to that object in
one spot.
This is akin to the answer of "I have a hammer, so everything is a screw" and IF your domain is as simple as a thin layer over a crud database, then that is the use case for multiple actions per controller.
What I have found is that any amount of complexity blows up the controllers, no matter how good your model is. The reason is CRUD opperations are apart of your model, not your controller.
We usually think that we will map nicely to a CRUD model in our controller, there are many front end frameworks that work amazing at that, untill....
Look at the most common aspect of applications, users. In the setup your going to have index of users, which I don't know who would look at that page besides admins, and they usualy want extra information. so for the index action, you need admin custom authentication.
Then creation, well, it does not make sense to have an user create an user, you need to ensure the user is not authentication.
Now we talk about reading. What data an admin, other users, current user, and anon user can see is massivily differnt, and will slowly build up in complexity.
Then delete, this is normally rare action, and on some models not needed, but you still put it up, because, well you have a hammer.
The update, do you put password updates in here too? what if the user forgot there password? do you put that in here? No, you make a new action called forgot password.
Well now you need update password action. What goes in the update is usually a gigantic mess of hell after a year.
Each pattern has its pros and cons, my general advice is to do multiple actions per controller when your system is trully CRUD OR you will not have to maintain the project for more than a year. If you have any amount of complexity that will have to maintained, avoid the model leaking into the controller and keep them seperate.
would it be considered a valid implementation if I do not use the model for certain parameters? For example a webform posting values directly to the controller which then passes them to another class. Is it necessary to make sure that all the fields in the webform are also referenced/stored in the model?
I consider it a valid implementation, but suggest that you do this only if the parameters you want to exclude from the Model are absolutely NOT going to be used by the View (other than for confirmation of data entry in your webform), AND there is no need for the parameters to be referenced again once handled by the Controller.
Yes, it would work, strictly speaking.
However, you probably want to use the model. You don't want to create a new variable every time you run the view, which would happen if you use the controller.
I would consider it valid implementation if you decided not to use the model for certain parameters. I believe there are instances where certain fields may not relate directly to the model in question therefore giving valid reason to break those fields/parameters off from the model.
I have a Spring MVC controller that handles about 6 or 7 URLs, each with a POST and GET. Most are related functions (issue refund, change price, etc).
Are there any guidelines or best practices for breaking up a controller by URL or function?
Part of me wants to have a separate controller for each GET/POST pair. If there is any duplicated code, I'd create a utility class.
I am curious to know how others handle it.
I usually break it up by the URLs. But I usually have one GET and then multiple POST requests (1). However, if there are only GET/POST pairs inside some functionality, I put them in a 'parent' controller (2).
(1) For example for the "Promotion" functionality (that has different kinds of promotions handled) I would make PromotionController as the main controller for that functionality and than make controllers for every kind of the promotion.
(2) For example for the "Registration" functionality, which has few steps and in every step just the GET/POST pair, I would put it all in the one controller.
I'm really confused by this... still.
I asked a similar question to this a while before, but i'll ask it even simpler now.
I see this in a lot of samples and tutorials. How could you put [Bind(Exclude="ID")] on an entire Model, and expect to do Edits on the model? If you get pack all the properties of a model on a POST but not the ID, then how do you know which ID to edit?
Even if i'm using ViewModels... i'm probably creating them without IDs. So in that case... also... how do I know which ID was updated on an Edit?
Yes, i understand that there is a "security" element to this. People can hijack the ID... so we need to keep people from updating the value during a POST. But... what is the correct way to handle edits then? What's common practice?
I feel like i'm missing something VERY trivial.
In MVC requests are processed by the model binder when the client makes a request. If you include models on your controllers then, as far as I'm aware, you actually have to specify the model you wish to bind to by prefixing your arguments with the model name (unless you only have one argument which is the model)
SomeModel_ID
Now, in some cases you might want to exclude certain properties from being bound to because they pose a security risk, which you seem to be happy with as a concept. We will exclude ID on the model, preventing any client request from posting this value in plain text.
Now why might we exclude an entire model? Well not all controller arguments are pre-processed by a model binder. RedirectToAction for example does not pass through the model binder, so it is conceivable in this instance for you to create a new model in a POST controller action, and redirect to a GET controller action, passing along a sanitised model. That model cannot be populated by the client, but we are free to populate it ourselves on the server side.
The only time I bind to a model is when I have a view model and an associated editor for that model. This makes it really easy to inject a common editor into a page and to encapsulate those properties. If you have to exclude certain properties from being bound to I would argue that you are doing it wrong.
Update
Following your comments I think I can see why you might be confused. The model bind excluder prevents the client from ever setting a model property. If you need this property to do your updating then you simply can't exclude it. What this does mean then is that the user could potentially post back any ID. In this case you should check that the user has permission to be modifying any objects or database records associated with this ID before serving the requested update. Validating the arguments is a manual process. You can use data annotations for validating inputs, but this isn't likely to help very much with access permissions. It's something you should be checking for manually at some stage.
You know the ID because it's passed to you through the page address. So:
http://yoursite.com/admin/users/edit/20
Will populate your ID parameter with 20. If it's used in a POST (ie, the information is filled in), just manually fill in the ID field and pass it to the database controller in whatever manner you have devised.
This is also immune to (trivial) hijacks because if they were to write some other ID besides 20, they wouldn't be updating the user with ID 20 now would they? :)
I am new to MVC, CodeIginter. Instead of getting things easy, it needs lot of code to be written for a simple application. These are might be happening becouse I am new. So I have few confusions about this thing. Any kind of help is appreciated.
1) Methods are written in one controller can not be accessed in another controller classes. I have to write a new function for the same functionality.
2) To create website administration panel (back-end) in none mvc panel, we usually create it in a new folder. Is this thing possible in CodeIgniter? If not what about the admin (back-end)??
Let's try to clear some of your doubts about this.
1) Calling a controller's method from another controller is not possible, and it's whtouth meaning by the way.
A controller is supposed to get an action from the URL (which is routed by CI to the right controller for the task) and, based on that, decide which Model and which model's method needs be called to elaborate the data requested.
The model, then, hands back the result of this elaboration to the controller, which , in turns, decides to which view pass this results.
The view, eventually, is structured to get those datas and display them.
SO, as you can see, calling a controllers' method from another controller is nonsense, it would be like going to a page and finding another one instead; if you want to pass to another controller the request...well, there's the redirect for that.
If you find out you have the same functionalities in several moment, think twice:
What is a funcionality? Do you mean somehtin like "display posts" in controller "archive" and "display posts" in controller "news" ? they're hardly the same functionality; they can maybe share views, or models, but that's it.
For functions that doesn't relate to URLs, but involve some further elaboration (which might be wrong to do in Models) and are nonetheless called in a controller, you have library instead. Think at the "form_validation" library, which is called in a controller's method, but has its own peculiar (and encapsulated) functionalies. Ora a "session" library, or an "authentication" library
2) To create an admin panel the easiest thing is: create an "admin" controller (which is accesible then to www.mysite.com/index.php/admin), and put all the administration actions there, in its methods: create_page(), edit_page(), manage_users(), whatever.
In order to avoid people accessing it freely you need to build an authentication system, which, in its simplest and barabone strucutre, might be a check of wheter a session is set or not (maybe a check done at __construct() time).
But you can find nice Auth libraries out there already made, such as Ion Auth or Tank Auth (the 2 most popular to my knowledge)
Hope things are a bit clearer now. See also Interstellar_Coder's comment at this answer if you're interested in the modular HMVC approach.
1) Methods are written in one controller can not be accessed in another controller classes. I have to write a new function for the same functionality.
What's the functionality about? Perhaps you should write a library/helper instead, controller's logic should be limited to request flow or something else but not too complicated. For that, put the functionality in the model, or if more general, in library/helper.
2) To create website administration panel (back-end) in none mvc panel, we usually create it in a new folder. Is this thing possible in CodeIgniter? If not what about the admin (back-end)??
I don't get it, could you elaborate more?