Once again, an MVC-related question. A few days ago I started reading the Cocoa Fundamentals Guide from Apple in which Apple explains their implementation of MVC.
In the chapter MVC as a Compound Design Pattern (link), they compare two MVC-versions:
The old / traditional SmallTalk version:
The current Apple-defined version:
They describe this current model as follows:
The controller object in this compound design pattern incorporates the
Mediator pattern as well as the Strategy pattern; it mediates the flow
of data between model and view objects in both directions. Changes in
model state are communicated to view objects through the controller
objects of an application.
The traditional pattern looks like MVC, nothing wrong. But the name of their current pattern confuses me. In my knowledge this could be seen as plain MVP because the Controller always seems to mediate between View and Model.
Am I completely wrong, do I misunderstand MVC or MVP? Or did Apple just use the wrong name for this pattern? And more importantly, WHY is this current pattern called MVC?
You're not wrong, but nor is the author of the Apple documentation.
The history of MVC is now long and complex -- not least because many systems advocated a tripartite separation which actually muddling the controller into the model or mixing the controller into the view. From the very early Smalltalk implementations, it became clear that keeping model information out of the view was a very good thing, and that this was fairly easy to do.
Cleanly separating the responsibilities of the controller and the view, on the other hand, is much less straightforward. Lots of views want to be reused, like buttons or textfields. The reusable part of their controllers wants to be reused too. But you don't PUSH a textfield or BOLD a button; lots of the button behavior is tied pretty closely to the view. At the same time, it can be hard to be sure when a business rule belongs in the model and when it belongs in the controller.
In addition, this (very good) Apple document is trying to capture a philosophical design idea, not describing The One True Way. Lots of Cocoa controllers subsystems look a lot like traditional MVC. Traditional cocoa deemphasized controllers, so this document is, in essence, arguing to give them a place as mediators between (reusable) views and (potentially reusable) models.
Lots of Cocoa implementors prefer thin controllers, essentially working as façades to decouple view and model.
Since MVP is a subset of MVC it's not surprising to find it in MVC systems. Yes, that second diagram illustrates the MVP pattern.
Apple calls it a mediating controller which – I synthesize – is just another name for MVP.
Frankly I'm not sure the term MVP ought to catch on. It implies it's a totally different pattern, and presenter seems focused on the UI, when sometimes it's just a relationship between model and controller. Mediating controller describes the distinction quite simply.
I had to look up MVP even to know what the heck you were asking about. The term was used in a paper in 1996. When OS X was released it would still have been new.
Related
I am confused about how model and view can interact
I was making a simple to do app with mvc pattern and I saw an article which said you shouldn't pass the model values directly to the view, which made the project more complex than I thought (I am relatively new to programming and this is the first time I am trying out a design pattern).
But then later on I talked to someone who said that that is not true and you can send the model data directly to view, he didn't even use classes or some kind of grouping to separate the function he just put them in separate files.
I was wondering if there is a guideline that I couldn't find or we can do whatever we want as long as they are kind of separated. I would love an article or a guide to read up on as well.
Since, I am not 100% sure the context in which you are trying to apply the MVC pattern, a good generic explanation of MVC can be found in GoF's 1995 book, Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object Oriented Software.
In the book, they state the following.
The Model is the application object, the View is its screen
presentation, and the Controller defines the way the user interface
reacts to user input.
A more robust explanation can be found from Martin Fowler where he also
makes the case for a variation of Model View Controller that uses a Presentation Model.
If you are referring to Spring MVC then there is some magic that blurs the lines a bit. But in general, you have a controller that represents some screen or an encapsulated piece of functionality that the user (web requests) interact with. The controller serves up responses that are derived from the domain, usually via a Spring Service (i.e. #Service). The domain (Model) doesn't know anything about the View and the View may or may not know anything about the domain.
Given that, the View should be derived from the Model. But that's not always the case since sometimes how we present things to a screen is not the best logical way to model things in our domain - not to mention, the domain should be presentation agnostic. This leads into Fowler's argument for a Presentation Model, which is a model that belongs to the Presentation.
I call this a Presentation Model because it's a model that is really
designed for and thus part of the presentation layer.
Microsoft took that idea and ran with it in a variant of MVC called MVVM (Model View ViewModel).
You can read more about that in Microsoft's documentation on ASP.Net Core.
So, back to your original question of "Should you pass the model directly to the view?" If you are using MVC then the controller is what provides the interaction. But if you're really asking, "Can you bind your view directly to the model?" If your model has all the stuff you need organized how your view needs it, then sure. And if it's simple enough, maybe that's the way to go. Otherwise, you could go with something like a Presentation Model or MVVM.
While using a custom MVC framework I found that the view can actually access data in the model. That was a bit of a surprise because I always thought the V must go through the C. It was something like
//this is completely made up but not far off
serverside foreach(var v in Model.GetSomeList()) {
<div>#v.name</div>
}
Do many MVC frameworks in any programming language allow the view to access anything in the model? When do i choose what should go through the controller and what is ok to access from the view?
Usually that "Model" is really like viewmodel, not the business layer Model object, although it could be the POCO version of the business object. Basically, the view is bound to some poco without any business logic.
Information flow in classical MVC.
Data in MVC should not go from model through controller to view. That is violation of the original concept.
If you read the original definition of MVC design pattern you will notice that Views are meant to request the data from Model. And views know when to do it, because they are observing Model for changes.
Modern interpretations.
In the original concept you were meant to have small MVC triad for each element in the application. In modern interpretation (as per Martin Fowler), the model is not anymore any single object or class. Model is a layer, which contains several groups of objects. Each with a different set of responsibilities.
Also, with the rise of Web there was another problem. You cannot use classical MVC for websites. Theoretically now you could achieve it by keeping an open socket and pushing a notification to the browser every time you changed something in the model layer.
But in practice even a site with 100 concurrent users will start having problems. And you would not use MVC for making just a blog. Using such an approach for even minor social network would be impossible.
And that was not the only divergence from the original concept.
MVC-inspired patterns
Currently, along with classical MVC (which is not even all so classical anymore). There are three major MVC inspired patterns:
Model2 MVC
This is basically same classical MVC patter, but there is not observer relationship between model later and view(s). This pattern is meant to me more web-oriented. Each time you receive a user request, you know that something is gonna change in model layer. Therefore each user request cause view instance to request information from the model layer.
MVP
This pattern, instead replaces controller with a presenter. The presenter request data from model layer and passes it to current view. You can find patterns definition here. It is actually a lot more complex, and I, honestly, do not fully understand it.
In this case the View is passive and will not request any data from model layer.
MVVM
This pattern is closer to MVP hen to classical MVC. In this case the controller-like structure (which actually would be more then a monolith class) request data from model layer and then alters it in such a way as it is expected by the (passive) view.
This pattern is mostly aimed at situation where developer does not have full controller over views or/and model layer. For example, when you are developing some application where model layer is SAP. Or when you have to work with an existing frontend infrastructure.
FYI: what is called "MVVM" in ASP.NET MVC is actually a good Model2 implementation .. what they call "viewmodels" are actually view instances and "views" are just templates that are used by views.
This is common. If you look at the Wikipedia page for MVC, this is what it says for the view:
A view requests from the model the information that it needs to generate an output representation.
MVC is an architectural style, so some people change it as they see fit. From the design intentions of the architecture this particular question is certainly not frowned upon.
I try to understand the main differences between MVC / MVP and MVVM patterns. I found these 3 diagrams but I'm not sure to understand them. Coul you help me and explain me what is the legend of the dashed line and continuous line.
MVC from Wikipedia definition
MVP from Microsoft MSDN website
MVVM from Microsoft MSDN website
Solid lines are direct calls.
Dashed lines are only event callbacks.
Main differences between MVC and MVP (Passive view) patterns:
In MVC view knows about model (calls getData() etc. to display data)
In MVP (Passive view) the view does not know about model. Presenter passes data from model to view.
More details in:
MVC vs MVP vs MVVM
In depth description by Martin Fowler: GUI Architectures
I think the dotted lines are indirect references
I'm not as familiar with MVC or MVP, but in MVVM a View references a ViewModel, and the ViewModel references the Model, which is represented by solid lines.
The Models can broadcast messages or raise event notifications which are picked up by the ViewModel, and ViewModels can publish events that are picked up by the View, however these objects should never directly reference the other object, so they're indirect references. For example, a programmer is aware that the purpose for raising an event notification on a Model is so that the ViewModel can hook into the event and process something, however the Model itself never references the ViewModel.
It should be noted if you're comparing the patterns, that they are very different patterns that just happen to share the same naming convention for some objects. For example, a Model in MVC is not the same as a Model in MVVM. Instead, MVC's M+C is equal to MVVM's VM, and MVC's M contains a mix of both MVVM's M and VM pieces
The dotted lines are notifications (e.g. observer pattern) and the solid lines are direct knowledge (i.e. compile time dependencies). Data change notifications are flowing on the dotted lines. A solid line with an arrow says that one component has knowledge of the other and can directly push data. A dotted line is looser coupling as the sender is firing out an event but doesn't know the nature of the receiver of that event which is hidden behind an event listener interface (if you are doing event driven versions of those patterns).
The point of the patterns is to create order by avoiding spaghetti code where everything directly interacts with everything else. So the diagrams are really only hints about what should be decoupled from what. Like any such diagrams they are hard to grok without a detailed explanation and they are only really indicative of what you should aim for; certain frameworks have more or less support for doing things in a "pure way". How components get loaded and wired together is not in the scope of those diagrams; only what happens when the user inputs data or the model is updated through a different view component. So the actual classes may have compile time dependencies and code to initialise the objects which seem to violate the diagrams; yet so long as it is just "initialisation" code which is connecting things together it may not be material.
Here is a presentation which tries to explain MVP, MVC (or possibly MVVMP) and MVVM (aka MVB) in terms of some less formal diagrams which show what compiles to what and who notifies whom with observer pattern event listeners. It is relevant to your question as it sets the context about what the patterns aim to achieve which helps in interpreting the diagrams in your question:
Design Patterns in ZK: Java MVVM as Model-View-Binder, Simon Massey
Here is an article which doesn't have the diagrams in it but which does the same simple screen three times using three different GUI event driven desktop patterns (which can be loosely described as MVP, MVVM and MVC/MVVMP). One key point of confusion about the M__ patterns is that they are overloaded monikers and hardly very descriptive or indicative of the actual pattern. The article is relevant to your question as it follows Martin Fowlers formal description of the patterns which are clearer and less confusing than their "M__" names:
Implementing event-driven GUI patterns using the ZK Java AJAX framework, Simon Massey
Whilst that article does not specifically answer your question it does give a comparison of three implementations of the patterns you are asking about and compares them; so it is likely to shed some light on what the choices the patterns are making which the diagrams are meant to describe. Of course if you pick a different framework to implement the three patterns the example code would look different; but hopefully the same trade-offs would be seen as with the examples shown in that article.
MVC is used in java architectures such as Spring, Struts etc..
MVC stands for Model view and container.
it is very good to use this strategy in Web application
Model–view–controller (MVC) is a software architecture,[1] currently considered an architectural pattern, used in software engineering. The pattern isolates domain logic (the application logic for the user) from the user interface (input and presentation), permitting independent development, testing and maintenance of each (separation of concerns).
Use of the MVC pattern results in separating the different aspects of the application (input logic, business logic, and UI logic), while providing a loose coupling between these elements.[2]
I've mulled over Design Patterns for some time now and I am just starting to see how I might actually begin incorporating some of these more deliberately in my development work. However, I am still confused about their treatment of MVC in the beginning of the book and how it relates to the rest of the book.
Most of the frameworks I have worked with - Spring, Yii, ASP.NET, and even Objective-C Cocoa (UIKit) - cater to the MVC paradigm. I get MVC because to me it is a useful way of classifying objects and how they should message or interact with each other. Plus, these frameworks kind of force it upon you even if you are not setting out to think in the MVC way.
I also feel that I understand the premise of Design Patterns: they really don't like subclassing, they love abstract interfaces, and they strive for loose coupling. I can't say I fully understand all of the patterns yet or how they are useful, but I am getting a feel for it.
My question is this: what is the interplay between MVC and design patterns? What were they getting at in the first chapter of the book with the MVC application example? Are certain design patterns just not relevant in the MVC paradigm? I wonder, for example, how the Command pattern is supposed to fit into MVC. It seems incredibly useful, but do we create a CommandModel and CommandController to send to other controllers? Do we just create a Command object as prescribed in the book? Basically, I am wondering if the ideas of MVC and Design Patterns are wholly disjoint and I just don't understand, or if there are some patterns that do not fit into the mold.
My personnal opinion is that MVC is a simplified version of the Observer Pattern which is a simplified version of the Mediator Pattern.
MVC: One Model, One view, the Controler manages the communication between them.
Observer Pattern: One Model, Multiples views ( observers/subscribers ), and the publisher manages the communication
Mediator Pattern: Several different Models, Several views, and the mediator manages the communications between them.
The MVC in the GoF book is for the desktop, it uses the observer pattern to update views. The command example in the GoF book is for an editor.
There are other flavors of MVC where the use of other design patterns may not be obvious:
What is the difference between MVC and MVVM?
Presentation abstraction control
The GoF book says:
...
Taken at face value, this example reflects a design that decouples views from models. But the design is applicable to a more general problem: decoupling objects so that changes to one can affect any number of others without requiring the changed object to know details of the others. This more general design is described by the Observer (page 293) design pattern.
Another feature of MVC is that views can be nested. For example, a control panel of buttons might be implemented as a complex view containing nested button views. The user interface for an object inspector can consist of nested views that may be reused in a debugger. MVC supports nested views with the CompositeView class, a subclass of View. CompositeView objects act just like View objects; a composite view can be used wherever a view can be used, but it also contains and manages nested views.
Again, we could think of this as a design that lets us treat a composite view just like we treat one of its components. But the design is applicable to a more general problem, which occurs whenever we want to group objects and treat the group like an individual object. This more general design is described by the Composite (163) design pattern. It lets you create a class hierarchy in which some subclasses define primitive objects (e.g., Button) and other classes define composite objects (CompositeView) that assemble the primitives into more complex objects.
MVC also lets you change the way a view responds to user input without changing its visual presentation. You might want to change the way it responds to the keyboard, for example, or have it use a pop-up menu instead of command keys. MVC encapsulates the response mechanism in a Controller object. There is a class hierarchy of controllers, making it easy to create a new controller as a variation on an existing one.
A view uses an instance of a Controller subclass to implement a particular response strategy; to implement a different strategy, simply replace the instance with a different kind of controller. It's even possible to change a view's controller at run-time to let the view change the way it responds to user input. For example, a view can be disabled so that it doesn't accept input simply by giving it a controller that ignores input events.
The View-Controller relationship is an example of the Strategy (315) design pattern. A Strategy is an object that represents an algorithm. It's useful when you want to replace the algorithm either statically or dynamically, when you have a lot of variants of the algorithm, or when the algorithm has complex data structures that you want to encapsulate.
MVC uses other design patterns, such as Factory Method (107) to specify the default controller class for a view and Decorator (175) to add scrolling to a view. But the main relationships in MVC are given by the Observer, Composite, and Strategy design patterns.
...
MVC is a pattern. But it only covers a small aspect of a web application. Another common pattern that gets used with MVC is the Repository. These are more architectural patterns.... their scope has a bigger impact on the overall project.
the GOF patterns will introduce themselves in little ways all over the place. They can help build MVC infrastructure depending on design choices. eg, Strategy gets used a lot so you can plug in different ways of doing things like "authentication" etc.
You don't have to use the patterns as they are, they don't even have to be the exact same code structure. Its more the design principle / goal of the pattern that you employ in the design.
MVC is an architectural pattern. It perfectly fits with other design patterns like Command Pattern. But you do not apply patterns just because they exist and they are written in an authoritative book. You apply patterns when you have a programming/design problem and there is a way to solve that problem that was discovered by someone else and was written down. The way to solve a problem is a pattern. For example, you have an application that saves data to the database. Data to be saved is quite complex: some records must be inserted, some records updated and some deleted. The sequence of steps is important because the records to be inserted into one table depend on records to be inserted into another table. So, a database transaction must be used. One of possible ways to implement the transaction is to use Command Pattern. The way to do it is very well explained in Larman's "Applying UML and Patterns" book (chapter "Designing a Persistence Framework wth Patterns", section "Designing a Transaction with the Command Pattern" - scroll down to the page 556). PersistentObject is an abstract Model class there. All other Model classes extend it. In that example MVC is implemented in the UI, Application and Domain layers but Command is implemented in the Persistence layer. These patterns help to solve different problems and they are mutually supportive in that example.
I think that the terminology used in Qt with model/view controls is flawed. On their explanation page they state, that they simplified the MVC to MV by merging View and Controller and they are giving the following picture:
However I think, they misnamed the roles of objects and I think that,
What they call View with merged Controller is in fact a View only.
What they call Model is in fact Controller only.
If you really want to have a model it would be somewhere where their "Data" is.
I am speaking about usual and sane way you would use Qt model/view component in your app.
Here are the reasons:
This is typically Qt component which is used as is, without adding any Controller logic specific to your objects)
This is hardly a Model, just because you should implement several Qt methods like rowCount, columnCount, data etc. which have nothing to do with your model. In fact there are typical model methods found in Controllers. Of course, you can implement both Controller and Model logic here, but first it would be quite bad code design and secondly you would merge Controller and Model not Controller and View as they state.
As said in reason 2. if you want to separate Model logic that it is surely not the blue box on the picture, but rather the dashed "Data" box (communicating to real Data of course).
Is Qt wrong in their terminology, or it is just me who does not understand? (BTW: The reason why it is not academic question is that I have started to code my project following their naming and I have soon found out, that the code clearly is not right. It was only after that when I realized, that I should not try put Model logic in what they call Model)
Short answer
Qt's MVC only applies to one data structure. When talking about an MVC application you should not think about QAbstractItemModel or QListView.
If you want an MVC architecture for your whole program, Qt hasn't such a "huge" model/view framework. But for each list / tree of data in your program you can use the Qt MVC approach which indeed has a controller within its view. The data is within or outside of the model; this depends on what type of model you are using (own model subclass: probably within the model; e.g. QSqlTableModel: outside (but maybe cached within) the model). To put your models and views together, use own classes which then implement the business logic.
Long answer
Qt's model/view approach and terminology:
Qt provides simple views for their models. They have a controller built in: selecting, editing and moving items are something what in most cases a controller "controls". That is, interpreting user input (mouse clicks and moves) and giving the appropriate commands to the model.
Qt's models are indeed models having underlying data. The abstract models of course don't hold data, since Qt doesn't know how you want to store them. But you extend a QAbstractItemModel to your needs by adding your data containers to the subclass and making the model interface accessing your data. So in fact, and I assume you don't like this, the problem is that you need to program the model, so how data is accessed and modified in your data structure.
In MVC terminology, the model contains both the data and the logic. In Qt, it's up to you whether or not you include some of your business logic inside your model or put it outside, being a "view" on its own. It's not even clear what's meant by logic: Selecting, renaming and moving items around? => already implemented. Doing calculations with them? => Put it outside or inside the model subclass. Storing or loading data from/to a file? => Put it inside the model subclass.
My personal opinion:
It is very difficult to provide a good and generic MV(C) system to a programmer. Because in most cases the models are simple (e.g. only string lists) Qt also provides a ready-to-use QStringListModel. But if your data is more complex than strings, it's up to you how you want to represent the data via the Qt model/view interface. If you have, for example, a struct with 3 fields (let's say persons with name, age and gender) you could assign the 3 fields to 3 different columns or to 3 different roles. I dislike both approaches.
I think Qt's model/view framework is only useful when you want to display simple data structures. It becomes difficult to handle if the data is of custom types or structured not in a tree or list (e.g. a graph). In most cases, lists are enough and even in some cases, a model should only hold one single entry. Especially if you want to model one single entry having different attributes (one instance of one class), Qt's model/view framework isn't the right way to separate logic from user interface.
To sum things up, I think Qt's model/view framework is useful if and only if your data is being viewed by one of Qt's viewer widgets. It's totally useless if you're about to write your own viewer for a model holding only one entry, e.g. your application's settings, or if your data isn't of printable types.
How did I use Qt model/view within a (bigger) application?
I once wrote (in a team) an application which uses multiple Qt models to manage data. We decided to create a DataRole to hold the actual data which was of a different custom type for each different model subclass. We created an outer model class called Model holding all the different Qt models. We also created an outer view class called View holding the windows (widgets) which are connected to the models within Model. So this approach is an extended Qt MVC, adapted to our own needs. Both Model and View classes themselves don't have anything to do with the Qt MVC.
Where did we put the logic? We created classes which did the actual computations on the data by reading data from source models (when they changed) and writing the results into target models. From Qt's point of view, this logic classes would be views, since they "connect" to models (not "view" for the user, but a "view" for the business logic part of the application).
Where are the controllers? In the original MVC terminology, controllers interpret the user input (mouse and keyboard) and give commands to the model to perform the requested action. Since the Qt views already interpret user input like renaming and moving items, this wasn't needed. But what we needed was an interpretation of user interaction which goes beyond the Qt views.
I agree with you that Qt's naming is misleading. In my opinion however, the problem is not Qt's alone, but is shared by all frameworks that allow us to adhere to the principle of separation of concerns when implementing our UIs. When someone comes up with such a framework, and finds a good way to keep "things" separated, they always feel obliged to have modules that they call "Model" and others that they call "View". Over the years I have worked with these frameworks:
MFC
Qt
Swing
SWT
WPF with MVVM
If you compare how the terms "Model" and "View" are used in these frameworks, and what responsibilities the classes in the "View", the "Model", and the "Controller" (if there is one) have, you will find that there are very big differences. It would certainly be useful to have a comparison of the different concepts and terminologies, so that people switching from one framework to another have a chance to stay sane, but that would require a lot of work and research. A good read is Martin Fowler's overview.
Since there are so many different ideas what an MVC pattern can look like, which one is correct? In my opinion, the people who invented MVC should be turned to when we want to know how it is supposed to be implemented "correctly". In the original smalltalk paper it says:
The view manages the graphical and/or textual output to the portion of the bitmapped display that is allocated to its application. The controller interprets the mouse and keyboard inputs from the user, commanding the model and/or the view to change as appropriate. Finally, the model manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller).
In light of that I would answer your three main concerns thusly:
In fact a Qt component "manages the graphical [...] output", and "interprets the mouse and keyboard inputs", so it could indeed be called merged View and Controller with respect to the definition above.
I agree that you are/would be forced to merge Controller and Model (again with respect to the definition above).
I agree, again. The Model should only manage the data of the application domain. This is what they call "data". Clearly, dealing with rows and columns for example has normally nothing to do with our applications domain.
Where does it leave us? In my opinion, it is best to figure out what Qt really means when the terms "Model" and "View" are used and use the terms in their manner while we are programming with Qt. If you keep being bothered it will only slow you down, and the way things are set up in Qt does allow elegant design - which weighs more that their "wrong" naming conventions.
The terminology isn't right or wrong, it's useful or useless.
You might change the question a bit and ask why Qt isn't more MVC-friendly. The answer to is that the early Qt developers believe that decoupling V from C in GUI applications makes for bad Vs and Cs both. QWidget's design tries to make it simple to bind mouse input interperation closely with pixel output decisions, and you can see how that's not the road towards MVC.
As Model function is to respond to requests for information, I think there is nothing wrong in defining such methods as rowCount, columnCount, etc. I think Model is some kind of wrapper for data source (no matter what is it SQL table or just an array), it provides data in standard form, and you should to define methods depends on your data source structure.
I believe their terminology is correct...although in real applications I find it can be very easy to blur the lines between model, view, and controller depending on your level of abstraction: one level's view may be a higher level's model.
I feel the confusion arises from their QAbstractModelItem class. This class isn't a model item, but rather it is an interface to a model. To make their view classes interface with the model, they had to create a generic abstract interface to the model. However, a model can be a single item, a list of items, a table of 2 or more dimensions of items, etc; so their interface has to support all these model variations. Admittedly, this makes the model items fairly complex, and the glue code to make it work with an actual model does seem to stretch the metaphor a bit.
I think that ... What they call Model is in fact Controller only.
No, their "model' is definitely not a controller.
The controller is the part of user visible controls that modify the model (and therefore indirectly modify the view). For example, a "delete" button is part of the controller.
I think there is often confusion because many see something like "the controller modifies the model" and think this means the mutating functions on their model, like a "deleteRow()" method. But in classic MVC, the controller is specifically the user interface part. Methods that mutate the model are simply part of the model.
Since MVC was invented, its distinction between controller and view has become increasingly tense. Think about a text box: it both shows you some text and lets you edit it, so is it view or controller? The answer has to be that it is part of both. Back when you were working on a teletype in the 1960s the distinction was clearer – think of the ed – but that doesn't mean things were better for the user back then!
It is true that their QAbstractItemModel is rather higher level than a model would normally be. For example, items in it can have a background colour (a brush technically), which is a decidedly view-ish attribute! So there's an argument that QAbstractItemModel is more like a view and your data is the model. The truth is it's somewhere in between the classic meanings of view and model. But I can't see how it's a controller; if anything that's the QT widget that uses it.