I am very new to asp.net mvc techniques, and have a question about how to render a view. In my project, I need to retrieve an XML file(XML string) from database. After getting this XML string, I deserialize xml to an object, say LogMessage, which I have defined already. Once I have got such a LogMessage object, I would like to display its contents to the user via a view. Additionally, I need to process some of the LogMessage properties before showing them to the user. For instance, (1) there is a logTime property in the LogMessage object, which is in utc format and I need to convert it to the local time, (2) there is a logCode property, which is in the format of int number (1,2,3, etc), and I need to convert each number to a meaningful name, such as eventStart, eventEnd, etc.
What in my mind now is that I create a strongly-typed view (of LogMessage type) in asp.net mvc3, so that I can render the view with Razor. Also I put all the necessary functions (e.g., for converting utc time to local time, mapping code number to its meaningful name, etc.) in the same view file, and call them when rendering the view.
But I am not sure whether I should do it as the aforementioned way or I should create another view model, say LogMessageViewModel (as I think actually the LogMessage is my data model or not ?). Then once I have got the LogMessage object, I can create a LogMessageViewModel (and LogMesageViewModel looks quite the same as LogMessage), and initialize the LogMessageViewModel with LogMessage and do all the necessary conversions in my Controller or Model, rather than do them in the View. Then now I have all the correct information in the LogMessageViewModel for the view, and create a strongly-typed view of LogMessageViewModel and simply render a view and show its contents to the user.
Could anyone give me some suggestions about these two different approaches or maybe there are some other better ones?
It is always a good practice to keep the DB layer and the UI layer seperate.
When you are getting data from the DB and storing it in a DataContract(LogMessage in your case), Use automappers to map it to a similar viewmodel(LogMessageViewModel ). Then use the viewModel in the views.
the flow goes like this
DB-> XML values -> LogMessage(DataContract/ Domain Object)-> using
AutoMapper -> LogMessageViewModel-> View
A Razor view engine that is used to render a Web Forms page to the response
Please go to here : ASP.NET MVC View Engine Comparison
That link may help your questions
and refer to : Rendering ASP.NET MVC Razor Views
It is always recommened to use ViewModels , if you require any more information that needs to rendered apart from the information from the model
If any additional processing needs to be done, you can do it in your view model.
Then, you can create a view strongly typed with the view model.
Hopw this helps..
If you are not using models, all the transformation logics , additional data needs to sent to view by using view data.
This makes controller fat.
It is a best practice to maintain your controllers as thin as possible.
Since, considering Single responsibilty principle . The responsibity of controllers is only to make transfer of controls.not any other thing else
**Conclusion: *Recommened to use ViewModel in your scenario***
Hope this helps..
Related
I have searched and searched but got no answers: How should the MVC pattern work?
So long I got two examples out of many similar ones: one of them suggests that the view should be updated by the controller, but the model is directly updated by the view, and another one suggests that the model should be updated by the controller, but the view should be updated by the model.
I have learned that the view should display content from the model fetched by the controller, and the model content would be altered by the view and updated by the controller.
It's been a year, and I got no answers. Maybe because the question is kinda opinion-based, or maybe because it didn't get much attention.
But ever since then I searched and studied more and more about best practices and design patterns, and now I feel confident enough to answer my own question.
Q: So, how should the MVC pattern work?
A: It should work the way you design it.
The MVC pattern defines three vital types of components: the Model, the View and the Controller:
The Model is what holds and manipulates the data you're working with: it handles persistence methods (writing/reading or CRUD) and has all the properties that your file/database table has;
The View is what displays the Model in a human readable way: it binds his visual components' values to properties of the Model;
Finally, the Controller is what notifies the View of changes on the Model, or notifies the Model of changes on the View: basically it's a sort of messenger, notifying two parts of each others' actions.
Now, how's the usual data flow of a MVC application?
The user changes a component value on the view;
The View queries the Controller about the value that the user passed;
The Controller then notifies the Model that it wants data about the value that the View passed;
The Model interacts with the database and gets the corresponding values (if they exist). After that, it notifies the Controller that it finished whatever it was doing;
The Controller notifies the View that the Model has been updated;
The View updates its' components accordingly, changing whatever values that may have changed.
That was only the reading flow, the writing flow is similar but a bit different:
The user changes values on the View;
The View sends those values to the Controller, saying that data changed and it should be persisted;
The Controller notifies the Model about the data changes, and passes the message along;
The Model then updates the database with the new/updated data, and notifies the Controller;
The Controller notifies the View that the Model has been updated;
The View displays a message to the user, saying that the operation was sucessful.
Now, when I first asked this question, I was with a Java-heavy mindset, so I wanted to know how would I go about implementing this in Java:
DAOs and Java Beans. You write the views and the controllers, but the models are split between data objects (Beans) and persistence objects (DAOs);
Java Beans with embedded persistence methods. You write the views, the controllers and the models. The models are Java Beans that have whichever persistence methods you need (the most basic ones being insert, select, list, update and delete).
So, my final answer is: There's a lot of correct ways of implementing the MVC pattern. But there's a series of guidelines you should follow if you want your implementation to be correct.
I'm writing an application which uses ASP.NET MVC with JSON.NET as the server, sending JSON to the client which is read by Knockout and then displayed with data-bindings. This is all working wonderfully, except for one problem:
I have a class Customer which is used to generate a ReviewAuthorViewModel class - the latter is meant specifically for JSON serialization and removes unnecessary fields, circular references, etc. On the client, I want to render a link to the Customer's profile page, with the URL coming from a defined MVC route "user/{username}". Because I'm sending this via JSON, I don't have a .cshtml page in which I can call Url.Action.
The question is: For an arbitrary object, how do I most efficiently/elegantly get a URL for an action with some data, without a .cshtml view?
I'd prefer a solution that doesn't require extra code in each action, but that may be the only choice apart from recreating the routing tables client-side in JavaScript. Below are the things I've already tried, and what was unsatisfactory with each.
Solution Attempt 1
Call the UrlHelper.Action method in the ReviewAuthorViewModel class. However, the UrlHelper requires a request context. For the sake of separation of concerns, I don't want my view model to have a dependency on System.Web.Routing, nor do I want it to need a request context to function.
Solution Attempt 2
Create a class RouteInformation with members Controller, Action, and Data, and an interface IUrlViewModel with two properties, a get of type RouteInformation and a get/set string named Url. The view models needing links then implement this interface, and controllers look for view models of type IUrlViewModel and run UrlHelper.Action with the information from the view model's RouteInformation instance, storing the result in the Url property.
This one works but without reflection I don't know how to find view models implementing IUrlViewModel within other view models, and it feels very kludgy.
Solution Attempt 1 is the OK solution. In asp.net-mvc, view models are part of presentation layer, designed specifically for use with views. You should not worry about having view model depend on asp.net specific things. In fact, they should be coupled, as they should be designed to maximize simplicity of view generation and data exchange between web server and web client. And it's good solution to create separate view model and not use Customer class directly for clients. It wouldn't have been OK if Customer was dependent on Routing.
In fact, you could set that property in controller -
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Get()
{
var viewModel = new ReviewAuthorViewModel();
viewModel.ProfilePageUrl = Url.Action("Index", "Profile");
// return viewModel;
}
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.
The framework I'm using on my project follows the MVC Pattern. I"M building JSON feeds and need to structure them in a different way then what the system gives me by default from the ORM. Where should I be handling the task of mangling and shaping my data that I'll serve up, in the model, view or controller?
Right now I'm doing it in my controller, then passing that data to the view. I can see this fitting better under the Model or the View but not sure which one.
If this different structure is only relevant to the view, you should keep it in the view.
If this structure is used in more than one view, make a Helper for it.
Internally your app should standardize on one data format, so models should always return a standardized format. If you were to do something with that data in your controller, you'd need to change the logic for interacting with the data just in that one controller function, which in this case doesn't make much sense. If you later decide to change the format in the model, you'd also need to change code in the controller that interacts with it. Don't create dependencies when there's no advantage to do so.
I'd write a model method to do it if I were you. Having it in the controller will make your controller fat, which is bad, and means you can't call that functionality from other controller actions or anywhere else. Although it could be considered presentation logic, I prefer to keep my views really simple with just conditionals and iterators at most. There may be an argument for having it in a helper, but I'd still stick with the model.
Hey guys - here's a question on Zend Framework or better on MVC in general:
I am asking myself for a quiet a long time now, if it is a good idea to push business objects (User, Team, etc.) to my views or if it would be better just to push dump data containers such as arrays to the view for rendering.
When pushing business objects to my view I have a much tighter coupling between the views and my domain model, however, the view could easily do things like foreach($this->team->getUsers() as $user) { ... } which I personally find very handy.
Providing domain model data in dumb arrays to me looks more robust and flexbile but with the costs of that the view cannot operate on real objects and therefore cannot access related data using object's method.
How do you guys handle that?
Thanks much,
Michael
It's better to make your View access a Domain Model object in an object-oriented manner, instead of using the Controller to convert Model data into plain scalars and arrays.
This helps to keep the Controller from growing too fat. See the Anemic Domain Model anti-pattern. The Controller only needs to know what Model to instantiate, passes the request inputs to that Model, and then injects the Model into the View script and renders. Keep in mind that a Domain Model is not a data-access class.
You can also write View Helpers to encapsulate a generic rendering of a Domain Model object, so you can re-use it in multiple View scripts.
Your View should accesses the Domain Model only in a read-only manner. View scripts should not try to effect changes to the Domain Model.
You can also design your Domain Model to implement ArrayObject or other SPL type(s), as needed to make OO usage easy in the View script.
It's true, a large driving motivation of MVC and OO design in general is decoupling. We want to allow each layer to remain unchanged as the other layer(s) are modified. Only through their public APIs do the layers interact.
The ViewModel is one solution to abstract the Model so that the View doesn't need to change. The one I tend to use is Domain Model, which abstracts the details of table design, etc. and supplies an API that is more focused on the business rather than the data access. So if your underlying tables change, the View doesn't have to know about it.
I would expect that if there's a change to the Domain Model, for instance it needs to supply a new type of attribute, then it's likely that your View is changing anyway, to show that new attribute in the UI.
Which technique you choose to decouple one layer from the others depends on what types of changes you expect to be most frequent, and whether these changes will be truly independent changes, or if they will require changes to multiple layers anyway.
The "standard" approach would be to completely prepare the model in the controller (e.g. fetch all teams, including users) and then send that to the View for presentation, but you are not bound by that. The data structures can be whatever you want it to be: Array, ArrayObject or custom Classes - anything you deem appropriate.
I dont use Zend framework, so this is in repsonse to the general MVC Have a look at the ViewModel pattern.
http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/06/29/how-we-do-mvc-view-models.aspx
I'm comming from a .Net MVC point of view but I believe the concepts will the same.
I will do all my view rendering in the controller bascially like below
model only output dataset/objects (this should contain the most code)
controller assign view and add necessary HTML and make use of models
view only contains placeholder and other presentation stuff and maybe ajax call
So my team can work on each part without interrupting each other, this also add some information security to the project i.e no one can retrieve all the working code they only communicate by variables/object spec.