I have question about MVP. If presenter sends request to model for data. Does model check these data or does presenter have to do it? For example: are data ok etc. Thank you for answers.
I think there are a couple approaches you can take to validate your data: Either the Domain objects or a Service.
You model is your domain. In domain driven development, your domain should know how to validate itself. So, you might have a standard Validate method on either class in the model. That can get a little tricky, though, if you need to make a database call to do the validation, although you could require the relevant data to be passed to your validation method, or provide a delegate to get the data if it's necessary.
Alternatively, you could put all the validation in the Service later, which your presenter would be calling to retrieve and to persist the model. This would result in the so-called antipattern "anemic domain". But, if that fits your application and architecture best, it might be the correct choice.
I would caution against having the presenter do it. That's not really it's job and it does not get reused like the model and service.
Related
If you follow the quickstart guide provided by the official Model-Glue docs, found here:
http://docs.model-glue.com/wiki/QuickStart/2%3AModellingourApplication#Quickstart2:ModelingourApplication
It will seem like the "model" is a class that performs an application operation. In this example, they created a Translator class that will translate a phrase into Pig Latin. It's easy to infer from here that the program logic should also be "models", such as database operation classes and HTML helpers.
However, I recently received an answer for a question I asked here about MVC:
Using MVC, how do I design the view so that it does not require knowledge of the variables being set by the controller?
In one of the answers, it was mentioned that the "model" in MVC should be an object that the controller populates with data, which is then passed to the view, and the view uses it as a strongly-typed object to render the data. This means that, for the Model-Glue example provided above, there should've been a translator controller, a translator view, a PigLatinTranslator class, and a Translation model that looks like this:
component Translation
{
var TranslatedPhrase = "";
}
This controller will use it like this:
component TranslatorController
{
public function Translate(string phrase)
{
var translator = new PigLatinTranslator();
var translation = new Translation();
translation.TranslatedPhrase = translator.Translate(phrase);
event.setValue("translation", translation);
}
}
And the view will render it like this:
<p>Your translated phrase was: #event.getValue("translation").TranslatedPhrase#</p>
In this case, the PigLatinTranslator is merely a class that resides somewhere, and cannot be considered a model, controller, or a view.
My question is, is ColdFusion Model-Glue's model different than a MVC model? Or is the quickstart guide they provided a poor example of MVC, and the code I listed above the correct way of doing it? Or am I completely off course on all of this?
I think perhaps you're getting bogged down in the specifics of implementation.
My understanding of (general) MVC is as follows:
some work is needing to be done
the controller defines how that work is done, and how it is presented
the controller [does something] that ultimately invokes model processing to take place
the model processes handle all data processing: getting data from [somewhere], applying business logic, then putting the results [somewhere]
the controller then [does something] that ultimately invokes view processing to take place, and avails the view processing system of the data from the model
the view processes grab the data they're expecting and presents that data some how.
That's purposely very abstract.
I think the example in the MG docs implement this appropriately, although the example is pretty contrived. The controller calls the model which processes the data (an input is converted into an output), and then sets the result. The controller then calls the view which takes the data and displays it.
I disagree with the premise of this question "Using MVC, how do I design the view so that it does not require knowledge of the variables being set by the controller?" The view should not care where the data comes from, it should just know what data it needs, and grab it from [somewhere]. There does need to be a convention in the system somewhere that the model puts the data to be used somewhere, and the view gets the data it needs from somewhere (otherwise how would it possibly work?); the decoupling is that model just puts the data where it's been told, and the view just gets the data out from where it's been told. The controller (or the convention of the MVC system in use) dictates how that is implemented. I don't think MG is breaking any principles of MVC in the way it handles this.
As far as this statement goes "In this case, the PigLatinTranslator is merely a class that resides somewhere, and cannot be considered a model, controller, or a view." Well... yeah... all a model IS is some code. So PigLatinTranslator.cfc models the business logic here.
And this one: "In one of the answers, it was mentioned that the "model" in MVC should be an object that the controller populates with data, which is then passed to the view"... I don't think that is correct. The controller just wrangles which models and which views need to be called to fulfil the requirement, and possible interchanges data between them (although this could be done by convention, too). The controller doesn't do data processing; it decides which data processing needs to be done.
Lastly, I don't think the "strongly-typed" commentary is relevant or an apporpriate consideration in a CF environment because CF is not strongly typed. That is a platform-specific consideration, and nothing to do with MVC principles.
I think one of the common confusions around MVC is that there are multiple Views, multiple Controllers but only one Model. cfWheels has a "model" object for each persistent domain object which I think is very confusing - but of course cfWheels is drawn from Ruby on Rails which also uses "model" in that context.
In general, in MVC, "The Model" represents your business data and logic as a whole. The Model is made up of a number of domain objects (which are typically persistent) and a number of service objects (which exist to orchestrate operations across multiple domain objects). In real world applications, you typically have a data layer that manages persistence of domain objects - which may be partitioned in a number of ways.
It may also help to think of the input data that the view needs as it's "API" and it is the controller's job to satisfy that API by providing compatible data. Think of it more that the controller needs to know what type of data will satisfy the view rather than the other way around.
I wanna restrict model to calling to db only
while controller will call model, libraries or helpers.
I do not want to put logic in controller nor in the model to prepare data for views.
Now the logic for preparing all the arrays for views are done in controller. I am creating a library to separate this part as sometimes i feel it is overloading the controller
Hence, i want to create a library class and make controller build the view data before throwing it to the view. It is not exactly templating.
The thing is i do not know how to name it.. Any good suggestion ?
I am thinking view_builder, ui_builder, ui_components?
Cheers
Here's how I'd layer the app:
View
Controller
Service
Persistence
View is either desktop or browser or mobile-based.
Controller is tightly bound to view. It's responsible for validating and binding input to model objects, calling services to fulfill use cases, and routing the response to the next view.
Services fulfill use cases. They know about units of work, own transactions, and manage connections to resources like databases. They work with model objects, other services, and persistence objects. They're interface-based objects, but can be remoted or exposed as web services - RPC-XML, SOAP, REST or other.
Persistence is another interfaced-based object. The implementation can be relational or NoSQL; the important thing is that the interface expresses CRUD operations for model objects. If you use generics, it's possible to write one interface that works for all.
I wouldn't have model objects persist themselves. I'm aware of the "anemic domain model" pejorative, but I think more exciting behavior should center around the business purpose, not CRUD operations.
Good setup. I also sometimes use CI libraries to work out the kinks in a returned data array before passing it to a view. I also sometimes just use the model.
And good for you for thinking about names - I think all the ones you mention are fine; you could also think about naming your library something like data_structure or array_to_object - or something more specific to your own problem like friend_map or tag_cloud.
My advice: pick a name, and then don't be afraid to change it if something more descriptive comes along or the function of your library evolves into something else. Find+replace is your friend.
I asked here a while ago for some help in understanding MVC, since I'm very new to the topic. I thought I had a decent understanding of it, and this is documented in a blog post I wrote recently on the subject. My understanding basically boils down to this:
Controller: Determines what needs to be done to fulfill a request, and utilizes whatever models it needs to collect/modify as needed. It's basically a manager for a given process.
Views: Presentation only. Once a controller collects what it needs, it creates a specific type of view, hands it the information, and says "show this to the user however you do it."
Models: Behavior of the application. When the controller asks it to extract or modify something, it knows how to do it. It also knows to trigger other models to do related tasks (in my understanding, when a model tries to "vote for something" on StackOverflow, that model knows to ask if a badge should also be granted because of it. The controller doesn't need to care about that).
My question, assuming all of that is more or less accurate, is where do entity objects come in? Are models and entities the same thing, with each object knowing how to persist its own data, or are entities a separate concept that exist on their own and are used throughout the application?
My money is on the latter, since this would allow models to act independently, while all three layers (model, view and controller) could utilize the entities to pass data around as needed. Also, objects and database persistence seem like concerns that should be separated.
To be honest, the more I read about MVC the more confused I get. I'm about ready to just take the core concept (separate presentation from logic) and run with it in whatever way feels right, and not worry too much about the "MVC" label.
Yes!
My money is on the latter, since this would allow models to act independently
You don't want to bind your view to an Entity, because if the view also needs some other piece of data, you would have to it to your Entity. The model is entirely supportive of the view, and is concerned with supporting that view and nothing else.
For example, you show a list of your entities, what other data might you need? Current page number? Total number of pages? A custom message to be displayed?
This is why you should bind to a model, which you can freely add data items to as you need to.
Update
Here is an explanation of MVC in action...
The controller gets all of the data required for the request and puts it into the model. It then passes the model to the view.
The view then deals with the layout of the data in the model.
Each Model can be one entity that contains some methods to control and use its data.
Is it enough?
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.
I'm slightly confused about what exactly the Model is limited to. I understand that it works with data from a database and such. Can it be used for anything else though? Take for example an authentication system that sends out an activation email to a user when they register. Where would be the most suitable place to put the code for the email? Would a model be appropriate... or is it better put in a view, controller, etc?
Think of it like this. You're designing your application, and you know according to the roadmap that version 1 will have nothing but a text based command line interface. version 2 will have a web based interface, and version 3 will use some kind of gui api, such as the windows api, or cocoa, or some kind of cross platform toolkit. It doesn't matter.
The program will probably have to go across to different platforms too, so they will have different email subsystems they will need to work with.
The model is the portion of the program that does not change across these different versions. It forms the logical core that does the actual work of whatever special thing that the program does.
You can think of the controller as a message translator. it has interfaces on two sides, one faces towards the model, and one faces towards the view. When you make your different versions, the main activity will be rewriting the view, and altering one side of the controller to interface with the view.
You can put other platform/version specific things into the controller as well.
In essense, the job of the controller is to help you decouple the domain logic that's in the model, from whatever platform specific junk you dump into the view, or in other modules.
So to figure out whether something goes in the model or not, ask yourself the question "If I had to rewrite this application to work on platform X, would I have to rewrite that part?" If the answer is yes, keep it out of the model. If the answer is no, it may go into the model, if it's part of the essential logic of the program.
This answer might not be orthodox, but it's the only way I've ever found to think of the MVC paradigm that doesn't make my brain melt out of my ear from the meaningless theoretical mumbo jumbo that discussions about MVC are so full of.
Great question. I've asked this same question many times in my early MVC days. It's a difficult question to answer succintly, but I'll do my best.
The model does generally represent the "data" of your application. This does not limit you to a database however. Your data could be an XML file, a web resource, or many other things. The model is what encapsulates and provides access to this data. In an OOP language, this is typically represented as an object, or a collection of objects.
I'll use the following simple example throughout this answer, I will refer to this type of object as an Entity:
<?php
class Person
{
protected $_id;
protected $_firstName;
protected $_lastName;
protected $_phoneNumber;
}
In the simplest of applications, say a phone book application, this Entity would represent a Person in the phone book. Your View/Controller (VC) code would use this Entity, and collections of these Entities to represent entries in your phone book. You may be wondering, "OK. So, how do I go about creating/populating these Entities?". A common MVC newbie mistake is to simply start writing data access logic directly in their controller methods to create, read, update, and delete (CRUD) these. This is rarely a good idea. The CRUD responsibilities for these Entities should reside in your Model. I must stress though: the Model is not just a representation of your data. All of the CRUD duties are part of your Model layer.
Data Access Logic
Two of the simpler patterns used to handle the CRUD are Table Data Gateway and Row Data Gateway. One common practice, which is generally "not a good idea", is to simply have your Entity objects extend your TDG or RDG directly. In simple cases, this works fine, but it bloats your Entities with unnecessary code that has nothing to do with the business logic of your application.
Another pattern, Active Record, puts all of this data access logic in the Entity by design. This is very convenient, and can help immensely with rapid development. This pattern is used extensively in Ruby on Rails.
My personal pattern of choice, and the most complex, is the Data Mapper. This provides a strict separation of data access logic and Entities. This makes for lean business-logic exclusive Entities. It's common for a Data Mapper implementation to use a TDG,RDG, or even Active Record pattern to provide the data access logic for the mapper object. It's a very good idea to implement an Identity Map to be used by your Data Mapper, to reduce the number of queries you are doing to your storage medium.
Domain Model
The Domain Model is an object model of your domain that incorporates behavior and data. In our simple phone book application this would be a very boring single Person class. We might need to add more objects to our domain though, such as Employer or Address Entities. These would become part of the Domain Model.
The Domain Model is perfect for pairing with the Data Mapper pattern. Your Controllers would simply use the Mapper(s) to CRUD the Entities needed by the View. This keeps your Controllers, Views, and Entities completely agnostic to the storage medium. This also allows for differing Mappers for the same Entity. For example, you could have a Person_Db_Mapper object and a Person_Xml_Mapper object; the Person_Db_Mapper would use your local DB as a data source to build Entities, and Person_Xml_Mapper could use an XML file that someone uploaded, or that you fetched with a remote SOAP/XML-RPC call.
Service Layer
The Service Layer pattern defines an application's boundary with a layer of services that establishes a set of available operations and coordinates the application's response in each operation. I think of it as an API to my Domain Model.
When using the Service Layer pattern, you're encapsulating the data access pattern (Active Record, TDG, RDG, Data Mapper) and the Domain Model into a convenient single access point. This Service Layer is used directly by your Controllers, and if well-implemented provides a convenient place to hook in other API interfaces such as XML-RPC/SOAP.
The Service Layer is also the appropriate place to put application logic. If you're wondering what the difference between application and business logic is, I will explain.
Business logic is your domain logic, the logic and behaviors required by your Domain Model to appropriately represent the domain. Here are some business logic examples:
Every Person must have an Address
No Person can have a phone number longer than 10 digits
When deleting a Person their Address should be deleted
Application logic is the logic that doesn't fit inside your Domain. It's typically things your application requires that don't make sense to put in the business logic. Some examples:
When a Person is deleted email the system administrator
Only show a maximum of 5 Persons per page
It doesn't make sense to add the logic to send email to our Domain Model. We'd end up coupling our Domain Model to whatever mailing class we're using. Nor would we want to limit our Data Mapper to fetch only 5 records at a time. Having this logic in the Service Layer allows our potentially different APIs to have their own logic. e.g. Web may only fetch 5, but XML-RPC may fetch 100.
In closing, a Service ayer is not always needed, and can be overkill for simple cases. Application logic would typically be put directly in your Controller or, less desirably, In your Domain Model (ew).
Resources
Every serious developer should have these books in his library:
Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software
Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture
Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software
The model is how you represent the data of the application. It is the state of the application, the data which would influence the output (edit: visual presentation) of the application, and variables that can be tweaked by the controller.
To answer your question specifically
The content of the email, the person to send the email to are the model.
The code that sends the email (and verify the email/registration in the first place) and determine the content of the email is in the controller. The controller could also generate the content of the email - perhaps you have an email template in the model, and the controller could replace placeholder with the correct values from its processing.
The view is basically "An authentication email has been sent to your account" or "Your email address is not valid". So the controller looks at the model and determine the output for the view.
Think of it like this
The model is the domain-specific representation of the data on which the application operates.
The Controller processes and responds to events (typically user actions) and may invoke changes on the model.
So, I would say you want to put the code for the e-mail in the controller.
MVC is typically meant for UI design. I think, in your case a simple Observer pattern would be ideal. Your model could notify a listener registerd with it that a user has been registered. This listener would then send out the email.
The model is the representation of your data-storage backend. This can be a database, a file-system, webservices, ...
Typically the model performs translation of the relational structures of your database to the object-oriented structure of your application.
In the example above: You would have a controller with a register action. The model holds the information the user enters during the registration process and takes care that the data is correctly saved in the data backend.
The activation email should be send as a result of a successful save operation by the controller.
Pseudo Code:
public class RegisterModel {
private String username;
private String email;
// ...
}
public class RegisterAction extends ApplicationController {
public void register(UserData data) {
// fill the model
RegisterModel model = new RegisterModel();
model.setUsername(data.getUsername());
// fill properties ...
// save the model - a DAO approach would be better
boolean result = model.save();
if(result)
sendActivationEmail(data);
}
}
More info to the MVC concept can be found here:
It should be noted that MVC is not a design pattern that fits well for every kind of application. In your case, sending the email is an operation that simply has no perfect place in the MVC pattern. If you are using a framework that forces you to use MVC, put it into the controller, as other people have said.