Given that there is file selection widget on the view and controller need to handle event of selecting file, should I rather write controller method:
public void fileSelected(String filePath){
//process filePath
}
or
public void fileSelected(){
String filePath = view.getSelectedFilePath();
//process filePath
}
The first approach seems to introduce less coupling between C and V: C don't know what exactly data does C need while handling given event.
But it requires creating a lot of verbose methods similar to getSelectedFile on V side.
On the other hand, second approach may lead to cluttered controller methods in more complex cases than in example (much more data to pass than just filePath).
From your own experience, which approach do you prefer?
The first approach is my favourite. The only difference is I would rather use an object (like Mario suggested) to pass arguments to the method. This way method's signature will not change when you add or remove some of the arguments. Less coupling is always good :)
One more thing:
If You want to try the second solution I recommend using a ViewFactory to remove view logic from the controller.
The first approach is the way to go;
public void fileSelected(String filePath){
//process filePath
}
The Controller should not care about how the View looks like or how it's implemented. It gets much clearer for the developer as well, when creating/updating the view, to know what an action in the controller wants. Also it makes it easier for method overloading.
Though, I don't know really how String filePath = view.getSelectedFilePath(); would work. Are we talking about parsing the View code/markup?
On the other hand, second approach may lead to cluttered controller methods in more complex cases than in example (much more data to pass than just filePath).
That's when you would create a View Model class (let's say we name it MyViewModel) to store all the properties that you need to send (may it be 10 properties) and then pass that in the action: fileSelected(MyViewModel model). That's how it's intended to be used and what the *ModelBinder's in asp.net mvc are there to help you with.
I think you need to look at this from a step back.
Worry less about how it gets in, and be more concerned with validation and error raising.
Tomorrow, your requirements could change and demand that you source the information via a different architectural approach. You could refactor the setup of [inputs / an input object] into a base controller class - or one of several classes for different controller domains.
If you focus on proper validation, whether within the controller (scrubbing) or outside of it (unit tests), then you perform more thorough decoupling though duck typing.
I would go with the first approach. It's reusable and separates concerns. Even if the method of getting the filePath in the future were to change, it won't affect your method's functionality.
Related
I'm new to Backbone.js and in my recent project I need a custom validation mechanism for models. I see two ways I could do that.
Extending the Backbone.Model.prototype
_.extend(Backbone.Model.prototype, {
...
});
Creating custom model that inherit from Backbone model
MyApp.Model = Backbone.Model.extend({ ... });
I quite unsure which one is a good approach in this case. I'm aware that overriding prototype is not good for native objects but will that applies to backbone model prototype as well? What kind of problems I'll face if I go with the first approach?
You are supposed to use the second approach, that's the whole point of Backbone.Model.extend({}).
It already does your first approach + other near tricks to actually setup a proper inheritance chain (_.extend is only doing a copy of the object properties, you can look up the difference in code for Backbone's extend() and Underscore's _.extend, they are very large and not very interesting. Just extending the .prototype isn't enough for 'real' inheritance).
When I first read your question, I misunderstood and thought you were asking whether to extend from your own Model Class or directly extend from Backbone Extend. It's not your question, so I apologize for the first answer, and just to keep a summary here: you can use both approach. Most large websites I saw or worked on first extend from Backbone.Model to create a generic MyApp.Model (which is why I got confused, that's usually the name they give to it :)), which is meant to REPLACE the Backbone.Model. Then for each model (for instance User, Product, Comment, whatever..), they'll extend from this MyApp.Model and not from Backbone.Model. This way, they can modify some global Backbone behavior (for all their Models) without changing Backbone's code.
_.extend(Backbone.Model.prototype, {...mystuff...}) would add your property/ies to every Backbone.Model, and objects based on it. You might have meant to do the opposite, _.extend({...mystuff...}, Backbone.Model) which won't change Backbone itself.
If you look at the annotated Backbone source you'll see lines like
_.extend(Collection.prototype, Events, { ... Collection functions ...} )
This adds the Events object contents to every Collection, along with some other collection functions. Similarly, every Model has Events:
_.extend(Model.prototype, Events, { ... Model functions ...})
This seems to be a common pattern of making "classes" in Javascript:
function MyClass(args) {
//Do stuff
}
MyClass.prototype = {....}
It's even used in the Firefox source code.
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.
The good style (Clean Code book) says that a method's name should describe what the method does. So for example if I have a method that verifies an address, stores it in a database, and sends an email, should the name be something such as verifyAddressAndStoreToDatabaseAndSendEmail(address);
or
verifyAddress_StoreToDatabase_SendEmail(address);
although I can divide that functionality in 3 methods, I'll still need a method to call these 3 methods. So a large method name is inevitable.
Having And named methods certainly describes what the method does, but IMO it's not very readable as names can be very very large. How would you solve it?
EDIT: Maybe I could use fluent style to decompose the method name such as:
verifyAddress(address).storeToDatabase().sendEmail();
but I need a way to ensure the order of invocation. Maybe by using the state pattern, but this causes the code to grow.
How I approach this is to make the 3 smaller methods as you mentioned and then in the higher method that calls the 3 smaller ones, I name it after the "why" I need to do those three things.
Try to define why you need to do those steps and use that as the basis of the method name.
A single method should not do 3 things. Thus divide the work into 3 methods:
verifyAddress
storeAddress
sendEmail
I'm following up on my previous comment, but I've got more here than would fit reasonably in a comment so I'm answering.
The details of the method belong in the documentation not in the name of the method (in my opinion). Think of it this way... By putting SendEmail in the name of the method, you're committing implementation details to the method name. What if a decision is made down the road to send notification via SMS or twitter or something else instead of email? Do you change the name of the method and break your API, or do you have a method name that misleads the consumers of the API? Something to consider.
If you insist on keeping the functionality of the method in its name, I'd urge you to find something more generic. Perhaps something along the lines of VerifySaveAndNotify(Address address). That way, the method name tells you what it's doing without specifying how it does it. The parameter of type Address let's you know what is being verified and saved. All of that works together to make your method name informative, flexible, and terse.
EDIT: Maybe I could use fluent style to decompose the method name such as:
verifyAddress(address).storeToDatabase().sendEmail();
but I need a way to ensure the order of invocation. Maybe by using the state pattern, but this causes the code to grow.
To ensure ordering of commands in a fluent style, each result would be an object that exposes only the functionality required by the next step. For example:
public class Verifier
{
public DataStorer VerifyAddress(string address)
{
...
return new DataStorer(address);
}
}
public class DataStorer
{
public Emailer StoreToDataBase()
{
...
return new Emailer(...);
}
}
public class Emailer
{
public void SendEmail()
{
...
}
}
This is handy if you need to create a very granular design and want to optimise your classes for reuseability, but is likely to be design overkill under most circumstances. Better probably as others have said to choose a name that represents what the whole process is supposed to represent. You could simply call it "StoreAndEmail", making an assumption that verification is something you do routinely before committing data to any destination. The alternative if you don't mind names being long is to simply describe it in full and accept that a long name is necessary. In the end, it really doesn't cost you anything, but can certainly make you code more specific in its intent.
I asked this question to get some opinions on the subject of glue code.
For example, imagine you have a class (pseudocode):
class MyClass
int attribute a
string attribute b
And to represent that data model, you have BOTH a slider and a text box to represent a, and a text box and say... the window label to represent b.
Obviously, when one of these view objects is changed, you want to update the others. However, updating the entire view is obviously inefficient.
method onSomethingHappened(uiObject)
model.appropriateAttribute = uiObject.value
The question is, what is your opinion on what to do next? Should the model object implement a callback that notifies a listener when the value has been changed, allowing one to write glue code like:
method modelChangedCallback(model, attribute)
uiObject1.value = model.a
uiObject2.value = model.a
Where you might examine what the attribute that changed is, and respond accordingly? This is the model in Objective-C and Cocoa on Mac, for the most part.
OR, would you rather have the responsibility lie completely in the glue code?
method onSomethingHappened(uiObject)
model.appropriateAttribute = uiObject.value
self.updateForAttribute("appropriateAttribute")
Both of these approaches can get pretty hairy (as is the problem with glue code) when your project gets large. Maybe there are other approaches. What do you think?
Thanks for any input!
For me I think it comes down to where the behavior is needed. In the situation you describe, the fact that you are binding multiple controls to a property is what is driving the requirement, so it doesn't make sense to add code to the model to support that.
In a web-based model I would probably put the logic in the web page since that can be done rather cheaply using Javascript. If I don't have that luxury (i.e. I'm dealing with a "dumb" view), then it would probably make sense to do it in the controller, or model glue code. If this sort of thing becomes common enough, I may go as far as creating some form of generic helper to reduce the amount of boiler-plate code I have to deal with.
After writing a few lesser programs when learning Java the way I've designed the programs is with Model-View-Control. With using MVC I have a plethora of getter methods in the model for the view to use.
It feels that while I gain on using MVC, for every new value added I have to add two new methods in the model which quickly get all cluttered with getter & setters.
So I was thinking, maybe I should use the notifyObserver method that takes an argument. But wouldn't feel very smart to send every value by itself either so I figured, maybe if I send a kind of container with all the values, preferably only those that actually changed.
What this would accomplish would be that instead of having a whole lot of getter methods I could just have one method in the model which put all relevant values in the container.
Then in the view I would have a method called from the update which extracted the values from the container and assigning them to the correct fields.
I have two questions concerning this.
First: is this actually a viable way to do this. Would you recommend me doing something along these lines?
Secondly: if I do use this plan and I don't want to keep sending fields that didn't actually change. How would I handle that without having to have if statements to check if the value is not null for every single value?
I've more familiar with the MVP paradigm, but hopefully they're similar enough to comment. While getters (and setters) in and of themselves are not necessarily evil, they are sometimes a sign that your subsystems are too strongly coupled. One really great way to decouple this is to use an event bus: see Best practices for architecting GWT apps. This allows the view to just shoot off events for the controller to listen for whenever something important happens, and the view can listen for events whenever something changes in the model that corresponds to updating the view. Ideally you wouldn't even need to ever pass the model to the view, if you can break up any changes into incremental pieces and just tell the view to change this part and then this other part.
If you feel you have too many getters (and setters) in your model class, maybe you have too many fields altogether. Is it possible that there are several distinct classes hiding within your model? If you extract these into separate classes, it may make your model more manageable.
OTOH the associated container you are thinking about could also be viable - but then why duplicate all data? You could instead use the associated container directly in the model to store all properties you can think of. And you can also pass this around for observers to get updates (preferably wrapped into an unmodifiable container, of course) - although in this setup you wouldn't need to.
In general, Java is a verbose language which expects you to put all those getters and setters (and a lot more) in place. However, any decent IDE can generate those for you with a few keypresses. Note also that you need to write them only once, and you will read and call them many many more times. Verbose also means easily readable.
If you have too many getter it's ok. But you shouldn't need the setter. The view is supposed to only read/query the model.
The MVC pattern should promote something that is asymmetric: the control update the model by calling methods in the model that embed the logic and update the sate accordingly; this respects encapsulation. The view reads/queries the model via the getters. This goes a bit against information hiding, but that's how MVC works.
I wouldn't personally pass all information in the events. It sounds complicated to me: either you end up with something that is not statically typed (e.g. you pass hashmaps), or with a plethora of typed events. I would stick with something simple, and have (possibly many) getter in the model.