Related
I'm scratching the surface with Angularjs, and thought I'd run a conceptual question past the fine folks of SO. This is a newbie question from a seasoned developer.
The application has dashboard requirements... a single page that surfaces stuff from many parts of the application. Different user types get different dashboards. We already have a legacy back end, so the first task is to build the dashboard to show many bits from it's new RESTful service layer.
I'm wondering how I should conceptually think about the controllers needed to support this?
The first question is... should they be model-centric or view-centric? In other words, should they be "view-centric" controllers that have the word "Dashboard" in them? Or should they be more focused on the model elements they represent, like "Tasks", "Contacts", "Notifications". Or should there be both where the dashboard controllers work with model-centric controllers?
The next question is... what level of granularity should the controllers represent? If view-centric "Dashboards" controllers, should they be "ManagerDashboardController" and "WorkerDashboardController"? If model-centric controllers, should there be controllers such as "LateTasks" & "OnTimeTasks" since I need to display them on different sections of the dashboard, with slightly different data?
I'm looking for tangible advice based on real-world experience and/or references to great links I've yet to find.
Here are my views from developing business applications in Angular for the past 6 months:
Role of a Controller
Initialization (loading initial data, setting options)
Exposing variables and functions to the template through the $scope
Application flow (through exposure of functions that can change state, or $watches)
I have found that, much like in traditional MVC frameworks, the controllers in an Angular app should really be super slim. Little if any business logic should be in the controllers, and should be instead be encapsulated in your models. I came to this conclusion after hearing the follow line from a presentation by Miško Hevery: "the purpose of the scope is to refer to the model and not be the model." That was the most valuable and enlightening line I got from that presentation (though I recommend to watch the whole video); that line directly resulted in me slimming down my controllers by almost 50%-70%.
For example, my company has a concept of an Order. I created a model that encapsulated all the properties of this business object, as well as its behaviours and injected them into the controllers. One business rule we had was the ability to add a Booking (another business object) to the Order. Originally in my controller, I had a $scope.addBooking function that first created a new Booking, then took the order and did a $scope.order.bookings.push(newBooking). Instead, I moved this business logic (addBooking function) directly into my Order model, and in the template I could then do something like <button ng-click="order.addBooking()">Add Booking</button> without adding a single line of code into my controller.
A lot of the code I put in my controllers when I was first starting off with angular, I found could be stripped out and placed either in my models, directives, or services (mostly the first two in my case). The remainder of the code left in my controllers almost all fell into one of the above 3 roles I listed above. It was either initialization code (e.g. firing an AJAX request to fetch data of the relevant business objects), scope assignment of objects, or scope assignment of functions that dealt with application flow (e.g. $scope.save or $scope.cancel that might send you back to a different page).
Should controllers be model-centric or view-centric?
This is an interesting question, one that I haven't thought about before. When I hear view-centric, I think of a controller that deals primarily with the view and how things are displayed. I feel there shouldn't be any controllers that are purely view-centric, the reason being it seems a view-centric controller can probably be transformed into a directive. You mentioned view-centric controllers as being like a Dashboard controller, which sounds like something that could definitely be made into a generic directive. Your directives should encapsulate most of your view logic, while your controllers focus on simply exposing your models to the view for consumption (back to the role of the controller). This has me thinking that controllers should more often be model-centric.
I think really the only conclusion I can come to is if a controller starts becoming too view-centric (with many variables and functions that deal primarily with the view and UI behaviour) then that is a sign that parts of your controller can be pulled out into a directive, making your controller slimmer.
This is very subjective but here is my answer to your questions
should controllers be model-centric or view-centric?
It depends (as always), I always try to have small controllers for the different parts of the page.
Some parts of the page are very view-centric (typically the ones that are shared among the different views). I usually have a menuCtrl, a headerCtrl and footerCtrl. This ctrls are very coupled to those parts of the page so a make them view-centric.
The other parts of the view, the ones that are business related are much more coupled to the business rules and in extension to the model so I make those ctrls model-centric. On an account´s business app, I would probably have an accountCtrl, an ownerCtrl, and so on. By doing so I can reuse them on different views if needed (and are much easier to test)
what level of granularity should the controllers represent?
The smallest as possible. Try to have small controllers that prepare the model for different parts of the page. If you have a big controller it will be hard to test, maintain and you will probably be forced to duplicate code on different parts of your application.
advices and recomentations with controllers
Keep them small.
Avoid DOM manipulation inside of them (use directives instead).
Use the controllers just to prepare the model. whenever possible delegate all the logic of your app to services. If you do so, it won´t really matter that much if your controller is view-centric or model-centric.
As I said before this is a very subjective matter and I´m sure many people will disagree with me.
I hope this could help you.
Basic Idea
So I'm actually in the process of migrating a legacy code base over to a restful based web service architecture utilizing AngularJs
Controllers are responsible for managing the data that is consumed by the view aka the webpage. My personal preference is that there is a one to one relationship between the controller and the view that it is serving. So, based on the question, Angular controllers should be more view centric. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who will disagree with me though.
If you are worried about the extensibility of this pattern, you should place your business logic and data access within Angular Services as described here. This offers you a tremendous amount of reuse of business logic operations as well as unit testability.
TLDR;
The specifications for Angular are changing all the time and with each new version there will be a new standard. A more view centric architecture looks appropriate for this application.
For some more complete reading on the subject I recommend checking out:
3 Tips To Building Enterprise Grade Angular/Node Applications
Lessons Learned: A Year with a Large AngularJS Project
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.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
NOTE:
This question has been updated to provide more detail and insight than the previously.
UPDATE:
I just want to say thank you to everyone who responded. I'm still pretty much in the dark on what design pattern would work best for the Widget. Perhaps one of the Factory or Builder patterns?
I am just getting started on a new project and need to use MVC, OO and design patterns.
Here's the idea: Imagine a page that displays a set of widgets. These widgets are (usually) charts that are based off of data contained in several separate tables in the database. I use a running example of page that reports on a student's performance.
High Level Requirements
a page that displays a set of (HTML only) widgets.
widget's data will be based off a database query.
the page can be used to view separate datasets containing similarly laid out data. For example, a single page will display widgets that report on various aspects of a single student's performance.
want to see another student's performance, pull up another page. Displaying different widgets for different students is not needed (though it may be nice to have later).
There may be many students, but data contained in the database is similarly laid out for all students.
the way a widget is displayed may be changed easily (say changing a widget from displaying as a pie chart to display as a bar chart).
widgets should be able to be created quickly.
Low Level Requirements
Currently data does not change so widgets will not need to automatically update themselves.
Widgets may represent a ratio of two things (eg. a ratio of failed tests to successful tests as a pie chart), a series of points, or sometimes a single numeric value.
Development of new widgets should be a breeze, existing code need not be modified.
Framework to be used: Zend Framework, based on MVC.
There are (minimally) three things to define a widget: the dataset to report on (in the example above, the student ID), the query that describes the metric being reported, and a render mode (barchart, timeseries etc).
Here is a pass at breaking down the responsibilities of each layer of the MVC:
View: Zend views are HTML templates with PHP injected. They will contain one of several types of widgets. Widgets are of various forms including: static JPEG images (loaded from a remote site ie: <img src="http://widgetssite.com?x=2&y=3"/>, JSON based javascript widgets, or charts of various kinds (piechart, bar chart etc.)
Controller: Creates the widgets, assigns them to the view afterwards. The set of widgets that is to be displayed on a page needs to be maintained somewhere. Since I can't think of a good way to do this in the view, I'll add this to the controllers responsibilities for now. If there's a better place for this please shout. The controller will also have to handle any other input parameters and passing them to the widget. For example, the data_set id which may be passed at the url line as http:/.../report/?student_id=42
Model: The model, in the Zend Framework, is responsible for pulling the data and as such will most likely contain a class for each widget for accessing the database.
Some points:
The model here, represents the data for a particular widget. So necessarily, it will need to know what the query is going to be, in order to pull together the tables necessary to fetch that data.
There's an additional processing step that will most likely be necessary before the widget can present the data. This is dependant upon which renderer will be used. Sometimes it may require forming a url out of the data returned. Other times, a JSON array. Other times perhaps creating some markup. This can go either in the model or the controller or the view. Unless anyone can think of a good reason to move it to the controller or view, it is probably best to let this live in the model and keep the view and controller thin.
Likewise, a widget will be made up of 3 things, its parameters, its data, and its renderer.
One big part of the question is: What's a good way to represent the widget in an Object Oriented design? I already asked this once, couldn't get an answer. Is there a design pattern that can be applied to the Widgets that makes the most sense for this project?
Here's a first pass at a rather simple class for the Widget:
class Widget{
//method called by the view
render() {//output the markup based on the widget Type and interleaved the processed data}
//methods called by the controller:
public function __construct() {//recieve arguments for widget type (query and renderer), call create()}
public function create() {//tell the widget to build the query, execute it, and filter the data}
public function process_data() {//transform into JSON, an html entity etc}
//methods called by the model:
public function build_query() {...};
public function execute_query() {...};
public function filter_data() {...};
}
Looking at it, I can already see some problems.
For example, it is straightforward to pass the widget that was created in the controller to the View to render.
But when it comes to implementing the model it seems not so straight forward. Table Gateway Pattern is simpler to implement than ORM. But since table gateway pattern has one class for each model/table it doesn't seem to fit the bill. I could create a model for a particular table, and then within that, instantiate any other models needed. But that doesn't seem so to fit the Table Gateway Pattern, but rather ORM pattern. Can Table Gateway Pattern be implemented with multiple tables? What alternatives are there? Does it make sense that the controller creates the widget and the widget creates the Model?
Another issue that arises is that this design does not enable ease of widget creation. ie. Say I wanted to create a PiechartWidget, how much code can be reused? Would it not make more sense to use some OO ideas such as an interface or abstract classes/methods and inheritance?
Let's say I abstract the Widget class so only the shared methods are defined concretely, and the rest are declared as abstract methods. Revising the Widget class to make it abstract (second pass):
abstract class Widget{
private $_type;
private $_renderer;
//methods called by the controller:
//receive arguments for widget type (query and renderer),
protected function __construct($type, $renderer) {
$this->_type = $type;
$this->_render = $renderer;
$this->create();
}
//tell the widget to build the query, execute it, and filter the data
private function create() {
$this->build_query();
$this->execute_query();
$this->filter_data();
}
//methods called by the model:
abstract protected function build_query();
protected function execute_query() {
//common method
}
abstract protected function filter_data();
//method called by controller to tranform data for view
//transform into JSON, an html entity etc
abstract protected function process_data();
//method called by the view
//output the markup based on the widget Type and interleave the processed data
abstract protected function render();
}
Is this a good design? How could it be improved?
I assume writing a new widget will require at least some new code to build the query, and maybe filter the data, but it should be able to use preexisting code for almost all of the rest of its functionality, including the renderers that already exist.
I am hoping anyone could provide at least some feedback on this design. Validate it?
Tear it apart. Call me an idiot. That's fine too. I could use any forward traction.
A few specific questions:
Q1. What's the best way to implement the renderers, as part of the Widget class or as a separate class? 1a. If separate, how would it interact with the widget class(es)?
Q2. How could I improve this design to simplify creation of new kinds of widgets?
Q3. And lastly, I feel like I am missing something here with regards to data encapsulation. How does data encapsulation relate to the requirements and play out in this scenario?
For #2, if you are using WPF on windows, or Silverlight in general, consider using MVVM pattern (Model-View-ViewModel), here is explanation with a WPF implementation:
MVVM at msdn
For #1 (comments not answer): For exact implementations (and minor variations) of MVC, it really depends on what language you are using.
Another alternative to MVC is MVP Model View Presenter
Remember the goal of OO is not to cram design patterns into your code, but to create maintainable code with less bugs/increased readability.
High Requirements
- a page that displays a set of widgets. widgets are based off of data contained in several separate tables in the database.
- widget's data will be based off a database query. widget display its data in a particular way.
- widgets should be able to be created quickly.
Low Level Requirements
- Data changes, multiple charts need to change, push model (from data to ui)
- Development of new widgets should be a breeze, existing code need not be modified
Advice from design patterns basics
- MVC supports one to many notification pattern, so yes, once your widget is initialized, created and connected to the web page, it should wait for notifications from the database.
- Strategy pattern, your entire code should develop to a interface. New widgets should be added to a parametrized LinkedList (or some other data structure). That way new widget developers just implement the interface and your framework picks up these notifications without change to existing code.
Siddharth
The purpose behind all of these ideas -- MVC, patterns, etc. -- is essentially the same: every class should do one thing, and every distinct responsibility in your application should be separated into distinct layers. Your views (page and widgets) should be thin and make few if any decisions other than to present data gathered from the models. The models should operate on a data layer agnostically, which is to say they should not know whether the source of their data is a specific kind of data source. The controllers should be thin as well, acting basically as a routing layer between the views and models. Controllers take input from the users and perform the relevant actions on the models. The application of this concept varies depending on your target environment -- web, rich client, etc.
The architecture of the model alone is no trivial problem. You have many patterns to choose from and many frameworks, and choosing the right one -- pattern or framework -- will depend entirely on the particulars of your domain, which we have far too few of here to give you more specific advice. Suffice it to say it is recommended you spend some time getting to know a few Object-Relational Mapping frameworks for your particular technology stack (be it Java, .NET, etc.) and the respective patterns they were built on.
Also make yourself familiar with the difference between MVP and MVC -- Martin Fowler's work is essential here.
As for design patterns, the application of most of the standard GOF patterns could easily come into play in some form or another, and it is recommended you spend time in Design Patterns or one of the many introductory texts on the subject. No one here can give specific answers as to how MVC applies to your domain -- that can only be answered by experienced engineers in cooperation with a Product Owner who has the authority to make workflow and UI decisions that will greatly affect such decisions in their particulars.
In short, the very nature of your question suggests you are in need of an experienced OOP architect or senior developer who has done this before. Alternatively give yourself a good deal of time in intensive study before moving forward. The scope of your project encompasses a vast amount of learning that many coders take years to fully grasp. This is not to say your project is doomed -- in fact you may be able to accomplish quite a lot if you choose the right technology stack, framework, etc., and assuming you are reasonably bright and focused on the task at hand. But getting concepts as broad as "MVC" or "OO" right is not something I think can be done on a first try and under time constraints.
EDIT: I just caught your edit re: Zend. Having a framework in place is good, that takes care of a lot of architectural decisions. I'm not familiar with Zend, but I would stick to its defaults. Much more depends here on your ultimate UI delivery -- are you in a RIA environment like Flash or Silverlight, or are you in a strict HTML/JavaScript environment? In either case the controllers should still be thin and operate as routers taking user requests from HTTP gets and posts, and immediately handing off to the models. The views should remain thin as well and make as few decisions as possible. The concept of MVC applied in a web environment has been pretty well established by Rails and the frameworks that followed, and I'm assuming Zend is similar to something like CakePHP in this regard: the application server has a routing system that maps HTTP calls to controller actions that respond with specific views. The request/response cycle is basically this:
User request posted through a URL
Router hands control to a controller class
Controller makes a call to a model with the given params
The model operates on the data, posts back to the controller
The framework maps the finished data into a view, with some kind of code-behind that puts the results of the request in the view's scope.
The framework creates html (or xml or whatever) and posts back to the caller.
It sounds like you want to use MVC and other patterns because they are the new buzz words. Splitting your design among model view and controller should tell you how to spread the functionality of your application. Although I totally agree that using MVC is the correct approach, I suggest you research the pattern and look at some source code that implements it. As a start to your question though, the widgets that will be displayed will be your views, that much should be obvious. Input from the user, such as changing a parameter of some widget or requesting other information will come into your application and should be handled by a controller. A concrete example of this is a Java-based HttpServlet. The controller servlet receives the user request and asks the lower layers of your app (Service, Persistence, etc) for an updated representation of your model. The model includes all of your domain-specific objects (i.e the data from your databases, etc). This data (the updated model) comes back to the controller, which in turn pushes out a new view for the user. Hopefully that is enough to get you started about designing your app.
As further help, you could consider using a framework to assist in the development of your app. I like Spring a lot, and it has a first class MVC implementation that really helps guide you to designing a correct MVC web app.
You may consider using Subject Observer Pattern
Have your class, named DataReader as single Subject. Your multiple widgets will act as Observers. Once your DataReader receives data from server, it (Subject) will inform multiple widgets (Observer).
Your individual widgets may have different presentation to present to same set of data from DataReader.
Update
In the message where subject notify observer, you may include the message type information as well. Widgets will only process message type, which is within their own interest, and ignore rest of the message.
NOTE: This is my new answer based on new the updated question.
Here is a proposed class diagram. I'm going to work on a sequence diagram.
My old answer is here:
Based on the requirements you describe, your model is your database or data warehouse and your views are your pie charts, bar graphs, etc. I don't see the need for a controller, because it sounds like you have a one page dashboard with widgets.
You need to spend your time on the database model. Since you're doing all selects and no updates, go for a de-normalized data model that makes these queries efficient. You should put the results of these queries in a table type object (e.g. 2-dimensional array) or 3-dimensional array based on the amount of dimensions. You are limited to 3 dimensions unless you use animation.
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.
I just read a blog post that explains MVC with a banking analogy. I have a few months of experience with web application development with an MVC framework (CakePHP), so I get the basics, but I began to see a theme that made me think I'm taking a flawed approach to where I put my logic:
Fat models, skinny controllers
Keep as much business logic in the models as possible
In my app, models are anorexic and controllers are obese. I have all business logic in the controllers and nothing besides associations and validation rules in the models.
Scanning through my controllers, I can now identify a lot of logic that should probably go in a model:
The app has lists, which contain items, and the items can be ranked. The sorting logic which puts the list in ranked order is in a controller.
Similarly, items (Item model) also have images (Image model). Each item may have a default image (designated by image_id in the items table). When an item is displayed with its images, the default image should appear first. I have the logic that does this in a controller.
When a list is displayed, related lists are displayed in the sidebar. The logic to determine which lists are related is in a controller.
Now to my questions:
With the examples I gave above, am I on the right track in thinking that those are instances of logic presently in a controller that belongs in a model?
What are some other areas of logic, common to web apps, that should go into models?
I'm sure identifying this problem and changing my design pattern is half the battle, but even if I decide to take those examples I gave above and try to move that logic to a model, I wouldn't know where to begin. Can anyone point me in the right direction by posting some code here, or linking to some good learning resources? CakePHP specific help would be great, but I'm sure anything MVC will suffice.
It's a bit tough to give you the "right" answers, since some of them deal with the specifics of the framework (regardless of the ones you are working with).
At least in terms of CakePHP:
Yes
Anything that deals with data or data manipulation should be in a model. In terms of CakePHP what about a simple find() method? ... If there is a chance that it will do something "special" (i.e. recall a specific set of 'condition'), which you might need elsewhere, that's a good excuse to wrap inside a model's method.
Unfortunately there is never an easy answer, and refactoring of the code is a natural process. Sometimes you just wake up an go: "holy macaroni... that should be in the model!" (well maybe you don't do that, but I have :))
I'm using at least these two 'tests' to check if my logic is in the right place:
1) If I write a unittest, is is easy to only create the one 'real' object to do the test on (= the object that you are using in production) and not include lots of others, except for maybe some value objects. Needing both an actual model object and an actual controller object to do a test could be a signal you need to move functionality.
2) Ask myself the question: what if I added another way to use these classes, would I need to duplicate functionality in a way that is nearly copy-paste? ... That's also probably a good reason to move that functionality.
also interesting: http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html