Is it a crime to call models directly from a view on purpose of displaying data?
For example, let's imagine that we have N dropdown lists in a partial view. These lists are to be filled by the values from M different models. Values come from some model properties and methods that may or may not query a database. I will use pseudocode.
Way 1. Call models from a partial view.
dropDownList(formModel, attribute1, Model1::someListFunction());
dropDownList(formModel, attribute2, Model2::someListFunction());
....
dropDownList(formModel, attributeN, ModelM::someListFunction());
Way 2. Fetch all needed list data in a controller and pass everything to a view (or a chain of views when one view calls other to construct itself).
Controller
...
list1 := Model1::someListFunction();
list2 := Model2::someListFunction();
...
listN := ModelM::someListFunction();
renderView("someView", array(list1=>list1, list2=>list2, ... listN=>listN));
someView
dropDownList(formModel, attribute1, list1);
dropDownList(formModel, attribute2, list2);
renderPartialView("_somePartialView1", array(list3=>list3, ...., listN=>listN);
And so on.
The drawback of way 2 is that we need to pull through the whole chain of views the whole "train" of all parameters (listP, listQ, ... listR) that are used in the last view of the chain. If we need to add another one parameter, we need to make changes in the whole chain of calls.
What are the drawbacks of way 1? I know that views are prohibited to make changes in models directly, but what if to call models just on purpose of displaying the view?
My teacher says View is allowed to directly call model in some cases.
Quoting from wikipedia -->
"A view requests information from the model
that it uses to generate an output representation to the user."
You can see the diagram on wikipedia page, model is sending data directly to view Here
and another diagram here
this is highly opinionated but few my remarks.
Ad solution 1:
depending on someListFunction it might not be possible e.g. to call DB since the connection was already closed by controller (e.g. hibernate lazy collections) etc. Any (unlikely but possible) error handling there might be worse to track (have you ever seen stacktrace from JSP page??). But if it is just some simple "transient" data model like getFullName() when model has firstName and lastName it is perfectly okey.
Ad solution 2:
If your view is that "complex", your model class can be complex as well. If you don't know yet a whole "train", build your model in generic enough way. First of all why it is bad to pass whole (sub)model to partial view when your partial view will then request only relevant information (e.g. list3 etc). This way if you want to extend your model, you don't have to change all the "train". Or implement it in even more generic way (if appropriate!!!) e.g. kind of map/dictionary/context object.
I'd say it's ok as long as you call model methods only for helping with the generation of the view.
However, there may be a better solution to this, so you're not dependent on the model as much. It's called ViewModel and Its role is to be a mediator between the view and the model. It aggregates the necessary properties and methods from the model (or even multiple models) for the purposes of the view. Your views know only about this mediator and the model isn't affected or referenced directly in any way.
Related
While working with Unity, I realized that separating Model and View would make my code more readable and straightforward. Constructing the whole model, all I had to do is just create some UI and bind it to Model.
But I still don't understand what 'Controller' is, and why does it exist. I don't think I had trouble when I directly bound View to Model, not through Controller.
So the question is if we can bind View to Model directly, why do we need Controller? What's the benefit of having Controller between Model and View?
At the highest level the Controller is the link between the View (displaying the UI/UX) and the Model (creating and managing your database and its tables).
True, it is possible to write code without any Controller usage but your Views will quickly get very cluttered and each file will be full of logic that is much more nicely stored somewhere else hint hint.
The Controller (and Model and some other places such as helpers) is thus the perfect place to sort out all the back-end code so that all you need to do is send a single field or object to your View to display.
An example is somewhat painful because by its nature the Controller is where you go to sort out your code as things get more complicated but this is a great article to get you on the right track! HTH
https://www.toptal.com/unity-unity3d/unity-with-mvc-how-to-level-up-your-game-development
I don't have years of experience, but in my understanding controllers provide a bridge across view and models. While view contain the pretty part and models contain useful parts the controller do the calls of functions passing values from database to view or inputs to model. That provide a way to avoid lots of injection like class A calling class B, calling class C, etc.
You can put rule business in controllers or in view, but thats not the expected in MVC architecture. The first important thing (for me) in software programming is readability, whats MVC provide.
if you've interest, search for other architectures like MVVM, to compare then.
If you follow the quickstart guide provided by the official Model-Glue docs, found here:
http://docs.model-glue.com/wiki/QuickStart/2%3AModellingourApplication#Quickstart2:ModelingourApplication
It will seem like the "model" is a class that performs an application operation. In this example, they created a Translator class that will translate a phrase into Pig Latin. It's easy to infer from here that the program logic should also be "models", such as database operation classes and HTML helpers.
However, I recently received an answer for a question I asked here about MVC:
Using MVC, how do I design the view so that it does not require knowledge of the variables being set by the controller?
In one of the answers, it was mentioned that the "model" in MVC should be an object that the controller populates with data, which is then passed to the view, and the view uses it as a strongly-typed object to render the data. This means that, for the Model-Glue example provided above, there should've been a translator controller, a translator view, a PigLatinTranslator class, and a Translation model that looks like this:
component Translation
{
var TranslatedPhrase = "";
}
This controller will use it like this:
component TranslatorController
{
public function Translate(string phrase)
{
var translator = new PigLatinTranslator();
var translation = new Translation();
translation.TranslatedPhrase = translator.Translate(phrase);
event.setValue("translation", translation);
}
}
And the view will render it like this:
<p>Your translated phrase was: #event.getValue("translation").TranslatedPhrase#</p>
In this case, the PigLatinTranslator is merely a class that resides somewhere, and cannot be considered a model, controller, or a view.
My question is, is ColdFusion Model-Glue's model different than a MVC model? Or is the quickstart guide they provided a poor example of MVC, and the code I listed above the correct way of doing it? Or am I completely off course on all of this?
I think perhaps you're getting bogged down in the specifics of implementation.
My understanding of (general) MVC is as follows:
some work is needing to be done
the controller defines how that work is done, and how it is presented
the controller [does something] that ultimately invokes model processing to take place
the model processes handle all data processing: getting data from [somewhere], applying business logic, then putting the results [somewhere]
the controller then [does something] that ultimately invokes view processing to take place, and avails the view processing system of the data from the model
the view processes grab the data they're expecting and presents that data some how.
That's purposely very abstract.
I think the example in the MG docs implement this appropriately, although the example is pretty contrived. The controller calls the model which processes the data (an input is converted into an output), and then sets the result. The controller then calls the view which takes the data and displays it.
I disagree with the premise of this question "Using MVC, how do I design the view so that it does not require knowledge of the variables being set by the controller?" The view should not care where the data comes from, it should just know what data it needs, and grab it from [somewhere]. There does need to be a convention in the system somewhere that the model puts the data to be used somewhere, and the view gets the data it needs from somewhere (otherwise how would it possibly work?); the decoupling is that model just puts the data where it's been told, and the view just gets the data out from where it's been told. The controller (or the convention of the MVC system in use) dictates how that is implemented. I don't think MG is breaking any principles of MVC in the way it handles this.
As far as this statement goes "In this case, the PigLatinTranslator is merely a class that resides somewhere, and cannot be considered a model, controller, or a view." Well... yeah... all a model IS is some code. So PigLatinTranslator.cfc models the business logic here.
And this one: "In one of the answers, it was mentioned that the "model" in MVC should be an object that the controller populates with data, which is then passed to the view"... I don't think that is correct. The controller just wrangles which models and which views need to be called to fulfil the requirement, and possible interchanges data between them (although this could be done by convention, too). The controller doesn't do data processing; it decides which data processing needs to be done.
Lastly, I don't think the "strongly-typed" commentary is relevant or an apporpriate consideration in a CF environment because CF is not strongly typed. That is a platform-specific consideration, and nothing to do with MVC principles.
I think one of the common confusions around MVC is that there are multiple Views, multiple Controllers but only one Model. cfWheels has a "model" object for each persistent domain object which I think is very confusing - but of course cfWheels is drawn from Ruby on Rails which also uses "model" in that context.
In general, in MVC, "The Model" represents your business data and logic as a whole. The Model is made up of a number of domain objects (which are typically persistent) and a number of service objects (which exist to orchestrate operations across multiple domain objects). In real world applications, you typically have a data layer that manages persistence of domain objects - which may be partitioned in a number of ways.
It may also help to think of the input data that the view needs as it's "API" and it is the controller's job to satisfy that API by providing compatible data. Think of it more that the controller needs to know what type of data will satisfy the view rather than the other way around.
I am quite new to MVC. I am having the following questions, please help me clarify those questions, thanks a lot.
Q1. Where should I populate my view model? e.g. My view model is very big, and contains a lot of the dropdown listbox, multi select list and the other few complex objects. I am currently populate them inside the view model self, by passing the model through the constructor, and load all the object data within the constructor. I also see my college populate the viewmodel inside controller. so I am confusing now, coz lots of people suggest to keep the controller small and skinny.
Q2. We are using the linq2sql as data access layer, should I use the table entity in my viewmodel instead of creating separate model class? Expert said it's bad, but if create seperate model class, I basically repeat them and I also need to copy those value to linq 2sql entity every time when I want to persist data, it's not that fun, too much work.
lots of people suggest to keep the controller small and skinny.
Yes. What people mean is that the controller should not contain any logic, except for model <-> view mapping. With model I mean the "M" in MVC.
Q2. We are using the linq2sql as data access layer, should I use the table entity in my viewmodel instead of creating separate model class? Expert said it's bad, but if create seperate model class, I basically repeat them and I also need to copy those value to linq 2sql entity every time when I want to persist data, it's not that fun, too much work.
No. You should not. Read my answer here: ASP.NET MVC Where to put custom validation attributes
Use a mapping framework for the model -> viewmodel conversion.
Update:
From what I understand, you suggest to assembly the viewmodel inside the controller (I mean call the business layer or repository to get my data) and use controller to call the business logic dealing with the data, am I right?
yes. The controller is really a glue between your business layer / repositories and your views. The views (and view models) should know nothing about them and the business layer / repositories should know nothing about the controller/view.
The controller was created for just that purpose. To create an abstraction between the user interface layer and the lower layers. Hence the only code that should exist in the controller is to make that possible (and therefore following the Single Responsibility Principle)
If you start adding that logic into your view models you start to add coupling between the lower layers and the user interface layer. Doing any changes in the lower layers will therefore also affect all your view models (instead of just the controller
your viewmodel should be a poco, and should most certainly not be handling the mapping of the model. if you don't want to map your model to your viewmodel in the controller i would suggest you look at something like automapper. it makes it easy.
once you've mapped from your model to your viewmodel, any extra properties that need to be set such as your lists should be set in the controller.
as i stated previously, definitely don't tie your viewmodel to your current orm or table structure. you never know what might need to be refactored, and if you can handle it via an automapper mapping instead of changing your view and viewmodel then you've saved yourself a significant amount of time.
Thanks to previous answers, I have now written View Models and really like this concept, however, there are points in the application where the View Model will be the exact same as the (Not sure on the term..) real model.
Now in this situation, I understand that a View Model is best as one day, I may change the application logic, and it makes the application more robust.
However, a situation I have now is where I have a multiple pages that are very closely linked to each other and all need the exact same Model. In this situation, would you use the same View Model or just create a separate identical one for each page?
Are they exactly the same? In my opinion, if they are exactly the same you should reuse the ViewModel. Why create the same ViewModels twice whose functionality is basically the same. However, you should be careful that there are no service calls being in ViewModel constructor because, you may not need the exact same service calls for all views. In that case your calls are wasted even though you do not require it. In such a case make a public method in ViewModel like :
public void DoServiceCallsForViewA()
{
ModelObj.FooA();
}
public void DoServiceCallsForViewB()
{
//your calls for view B
ModelObj.FooB();
}
Then in your viewA you can typecast the DataContext,
((YourViewModelName)DataContext).DoServiceCallsForViewA();
and in your viewB you can write :
((YourViewModelName)DataContext).DoServiceCallsForViewB();
ViewModels should be simple data vehicles between views and controller actions (just a list of properties). If they are simple lists of properties in your app you can use Automapper to make your eventual decision on this fine detail less important.
...not to evade the question, I would stick with one ViewModel definition while the views are demanding exactly the same data shuttle and be ready to create a new ViewModel when one of those views needs something ever so slightly different.
There is no need to duplicate except to make your view:action mappings obvious, but weighing the obvious mapping against violation of the DRY principle seems like a straightforward decision...
The way I see it, your Model instances should each have an associated ViewModel. That is to say, you should have a 1:1 relationship betweel Models and ViewModels. You are however free to bind multiple Views to the same ViewModel.
Say, for example, you have a Person object, and a PersonViewModel, and then two different Views relating to that Person, say a PersonEditView and a PersonDetailsView. You should put all the neccessary properties for both PersonEditView and PersonDetailsView into PersonViewModel. Then use a DataTemplateSelector to choose which View should be displayed for the ViewModel at which times.
The each ViewModel instance should be a representative for a single Model instance, and it should be the only representative for that Model instance.
If a view needs to acces data from a model, do you think the controller should:
a) pass the model to the view
b) pass the data of the model to the view
c) neither; it shouldn't be the controllers concern. Let the view access the model directly to retrieve the data. Only let the controller give some parameters the view needs to filter the data from the model.
d) it depends on the situation.
e) none of the above, but [...]
Thanks
After some debate in the comments to an answer that was deleted by the user, maybe this needs clarification. My view of the MVC architecture is biased towards that of the Zend Framework (php) in which an action in a controller by default has a default view assigned to it. So it's not so much the model that dictates which view is approporiate, but rather the controller. Do you feel the model should dictate what view is appropriate? The only way I see fit to let the view be build based on a model, is by letting the controller pass the model to the view. Are there other techniques to let a view access a model without the controller being involved? Or is it perfectly fine to let a controller pass the model to a view, so that the view can be build based on the models attributes?
e) None of the above; pass in a view-optimised "ViewModel".
Example in ASP.NET MVC:-
public ActionResult Details(int id)
{
Product p = ProductService.GetProductById(id);
if(p == null) { return RedirectToAction("Index"); }
ProductViewModel model = new ProductViewModel(p);
return View(model);
}
both a) and b) "will do" subject to d). Never ever c).
Typically, the ViewModel just encapsulates the Model (if nothing complicated is going on, your view could access the model directly via ProductViewModel.Product). If the view needs to do anything complicated with the Model however, it's the ViewModel's responsibility to do that, rather than the responsibility of the Controller, or the View.
This keeps your concerns nice and segregated. Your Controller doesn't care exactly what specific data your View needs (beyond the fact that it's rendering some Details of a Product), or especially what format your View needs that data in. Your View doesn't depend on the implementation details of your Model. Your Model doesn't have to concern itself with how it's being Viewed. If you have two Views rendering Products (e.g. Create, Edit, Summary, MoreDetails etc), those Views can have different ViewModels to expose only the data that each specific View needs, so your Views aren't depending on eachother. Lovely :)
Some further reading from various viewpoints:-
http://www.thoughtclusters.com/2007/12/datamodel-and-viewmodel/
http://stephenwalther.com/blog/archive/2009/04/13/asp.net-mvc-tip-50-ndash-create-view-models.aspx
http://www.nikhilk.net/Silverlight-ViewModel-MVC.aspx
I think ViewModels are a particularly .NET thing, but I see no reason at all why the pattern can't be used in PHP.
Hope this helps.
Ideally, it should "pass the data of the model to the view" so the view doesn't need to know any explicit structure of the model and thus be more reusable and designer-friendly.
But practically, "pass the model to the view" works as just fine. Most of the time you will need a new view anyway because clients never share favorite colors (if you know what I mean :-) so views re-usability doesn't justify having a lot of tedious code required to copy data from the model to the view.
What you should concern more about is the modularity of the controller itself, since many websites do share common functionalities (controllers) such as web forums or a news listing but not looks (views)
This is late I know, but I'm having this issue on a project I am working on. I started with a) - for simplicity - and now running into road blocks.
I am coming around to this method:
e) None of the above; pass in a view-optimised "ViewModel".
because it avoid bloating both your model classes (instances of which are "transaction objects") and your views. For example, you may need to render a number with a specific number of decimal places (this is the problem I am having now).
With an intermediate "ViewModel" this is easy - you just write the relevant ViewModel "getXXX" method to return the number formatted how you wish.
If you just pass the model directly into the view, you will need to specify it in the view every time you use this figure (going against DRY - don't repeat yourself), or alternately, add a rendering method to your model classes (which goes against a class being for one purpose only).
Cheers
a) pass the model to the view
Otherwise the controller is manipulating the view via screening the model. This is what would happen in "b) pass the data of the model to the view". The b) option doesn't really even make sense in the pure MVC pattern. After all, the model IS the data. If the model is changed for consumption, a view has been applied, whether you choose to do it in the controller and pass it off as a controller function. What happens when you have a different view? Does the controller screen its data differently? You soon have two views for model, the controller sub-view and the view itself.
For me that's e).
As already mentioned here, ideally the view and the model are decoupled. The way I prefer to implement this is to have a viewHelper for a model. This has the API the view can use to get the data. Now views are not affected by changes in the model and the view doesn't need to 'get' the internals of the model. These are hidden away by the viewHelper.
example:
class Post {
public function export(ViewHelper $helper) {} // I try to avoid getters when I can
}
class PostViewHelper {
public function getTitle($parameters) {} // title of current post in the loop
}
class PostView {
private $helpers = array();
public function loadTemplate($path) {}
public function addHelper(ViewHelper $helper, $name) {}
public function __get($key) {} // if exists $this->helper[$key] etc
}
in a template
<h1><?php $this->post->getTitle(); ?></h1>
You may want to implement this differently. But my point is in how the view and the model are decoupled, introducing an intermediate viewHelper wich creates the view/template API.
I don't think it's that complicated. a or b.
The controller's job is to manage the relationship. It finds the model and view and provides the view all the model data it needs to do its job. That's it. MVC doesn't dictate the exact form the data takes.
(a) Start simple. It's pretty natural to pass the model objects directly to the view. If you have a page about a Foo, just pass the Foo.
(b) But at times-- and only at times-- you create a value object / DTO to get the data to the view (called a ViewModel above). Do this when there's a mismatch between the view and the native model, such as summary views. If the view is presenting a summary of 1,000,000 objects, you don't want to hand the view the model objects; you want to hand the view a summary of the 1,000,000 objects.
And the exact implementation really depends on the language and framework you are using. But I think these guidelines are a good start.
uhh b.
i dont really see the difference between a and b other then some technicallity of how you will be passing data.
usually you pass a map of data to the view with some data from the model