I've looked through the other questions and am still struggling so if anybody could take the time to look at this, it would be much appreciated :).
I currently have my app working fine but I've been reading and have decided it doesn't fit the MVC design pattern. I am still learning lots about design and would like to edit it so that it is more sound.
I think I know what should go in to my model class, and I think that it should be instantiated in the app delegate. My questions are: why in that location? Is lazy instantiation the best/correct way to do this? And finally, once initiated, do I use a property to access the class or do you use special methods?
Sorry for the overload; I am also trying to get my reputation up enough to vote on other questions! :)
It's really hard to answer a general question like this, since there are so many ways one could implement any particular project. In general, I don't think that instantiating a model class in your app delegate is necessarily the way to go. Since a controller class mediates between the model and the view, it's often better to instantiate your model in a controller class -- for instance, I have a program that keeps track of the plants in my garden, and my controller class is a subclass of NSArrayController. It seems to make sense to create new plant objects in the controller and then just add them to its arrangedObjects. I try to have as few connections (via properties or ivars) between classes as I can, the thought being that each class should take care of its own business as much as possible. Often, you don't need to have a reference to the class, because you are calling class methods to create new objects, and then those objects can access any instance methods of that class without any explicit reference to the class.
Related
I am in the process of building a Cocoa app, which is comprised of a window divided in 3 sections. Each section is responsible for its own business and there are around 30 controls in it between table views, pop up buttons etc.
I started with a single Controller but things get messy pretty easily, so I decided to break the logic down in 3 controllers object (one each section of the view). I then created the NSObject reference on Interface Builder and hooked up all the outlets, actions, data sources and delegates. So far so good.
Now, the three sections pass objects to each other and therefore I need a way to set an object from one class to another. The object in question is a class variable, but as I have no reference to the object I don't know how to pass it around.
Is there a way to do this or is this just the wrong approach overall?
Solution:
As Sergio mentioned below in one of the comments, the solution seems to be to create a weak reference to the other controllers inside each controller as IBOutlet and then in the Xcode Interface Builder link the controller objects together. As a result, now each controller can access the exposed methods and variables of the referenced controllers.
Now, the three sections pass objects to each other and therefor I need a way to set an object from one class to another. The object in question is a class variable, but as I have no reference to the object I don't know how to pass it around.
What seems missing in your design is a Model (as in Model-View-Controller). This would be a class encapsulating all the state of your app, even if it is transitory state, so that each affected object have access to it.
One easy implementation for such a model class is a singleton, so that it is readily available in all of your controllers. Have a look here for some thought about the implementation of a singleton in Objective-C.
Once you have your model class, your controllers could access it like this, e.g.:
[MyModel sharedModel].myObject = ...;
This approach is good, IMO, if it makes sense for you to go in the direction of creating a Model for your design. This depends on the semantics of the object that your controllers share. So, there might be alternative solutions better fit for your case. E.g., one controller could be the owner of the shared object, and the other two could receive a reference to the first controller on init so that they can access its public properties.
Could somebody explain is it possible to have potected, pivate methods in playfamewok's contolles except:
public static void method-action-name() {}
For example if I would have method like this:
protected static int doSomeWork() {}
and this method would be invoked in method-action-name() ..
public static void method-action-name() {
...
int resul = doSomeWork();
...
}
I do not want to have long action-method, so I would like to split it to smaller ones, and then reuse it in other action-methods.
I mean is it ok (from playframework's point of view) to have such method in controller side instead of having them in domain classes? In Spring Framework, we use BP (business process) beans for that, for example.
Is it ok to have such helper methods for business methods in playframework controllers ?
Added after having answer & comments:
For example if I have SearchController class then for that class would be nice to have methods like preSearch1(), preSearch2() what search() method would use, but if I move these methods (1,2) to another class then it should be class with name like SearchHelper then? in package named /src/helpers.. not very nice because they related to search too. But maybe then into /src/bp/SearchBP (bp=business-process). And then in controllers/Search i use /bp/SearchBP that use some Model object with .save() DAO methods (SearchBP can use Domain methods and Search class can use Domain methods as well)
The question here: what class ant package would be nice for those methods? (i just did watch it in examples - there alway very simple usage of controllers that use domain object that why i ask)
yes, you can. Controllers are normal classes, you can add whatever you want. It may not be recommended to clutter them with helper methods, I personally would move them to another class, but you can do what you say.
ANSWER TO EDIT:
The name of the package is "irrelevant", won't change it too much :). You can put them under controllers.support.search which would mean controllers.support is a package with helper classes and the subpackage search contains helper classes and methods related to search.
One alternative (which I like more) is to create a Service layer for that, in a "services" package. You seem to come from a Spring background, so it should come naturally to you. These services are instantiated in the controller as required, or maybe just used via static methods, and do the main business logic. That way the controller only tackles the "higher level" logic.
Another alternative is to move as much of that logic as possible into the Model (avoidid the Anemic Domain Model), and using the Model classes from the controller.
As most decisions in development, which one is better depends on your experience, possible impact/limitations in the codebase, practices in your project... anyway, you can always refactor. Just choose the one that you are more used to (it seems to be Services approach) and code away :)
Any behaviour that's complicated enough to be described as "business logic" (rather than "presentation logic") belongs in the model, not the controller. If your model does nothing but map to/from a set of database tables, then it isn't doing its job properly. Things like permissions and access control, in particular, should be enforced by the model.
Warning acronym overload approaching!!! I'm doing TDD and DDD with an MVP passive view pattern and DI. I'm finding myself adding dependency after dependency to the constructor of my presenter class as I write each new test. Most are domain objects. I'm using factories for dependency injection though I will likely be moving to an IoC container eventually.
When using constructor injection (as apposed to property injection) its easy to see where your dependencies are. A large number of dependencies is usually an indicator that a class has too much responsibility but in the case of a presenter, I fail to see how to avoid this.
I've thought of wrapping all the domain objects into a single "Domain" class which would act as a middle man but I have this gut feeling that I'd only be moving the problem instead of fixing it.
Am I missing something or is this unavoidable?
Often a large number of arguments to a method (constructor, function, etc) is a code smell. It can be hard to understand what all the arguments are. This is especially the case if you have large numbers of arguments of the same type. It is very easy for them to get confused which can introduce subtle bugs.
The refactoring is called "Introduce Parameter Object". Whether that's really a domain object or not, it is basically a data transfer object that minimizes the number of parameters passed to a method and gives them a bit more context.
I only use DI on the Constructor if I need something to be there from the start. Otherwise I use properties and have lazy loading for the other items. For TDD/DI as long as you can inject the item when you need it you don't need to add it to your constructor.
I recommend always following the Law of Demeter and not following the DI myth of everything needs to be in the constructor. Misko Hevery (Agile Coach at Google) describes it well on his blog http://misko.hevery.com/2008/10/21/dependency-injection-myth-reference-passing/
Having a Layer Supertype might not be a bad idea, but I think your code smell might be indicating something else. Geofflane mentioned the refactor pattern, Introduce Parameter Object. While it's a good pattern for this sort of problem, I'm not entirely sure it's the way to go for this situation.
Question: Why are you passing in Domain Model objects to the constructor?
There is such a thing as having too much abstraction. If there's one solid layer of code you should be able to trust, it's your Domain Model. You don't need to reference 3 IEntity objects when you're dealing with Customer, Vendor, and Product classes if those are part of your basic Domain Model and you don't necessarily need polymorphism.
My advice: Pass in application and domain services. Trust your Domain Model.
EDIT:
Re-reading the problem when it's not horribly late at night, I realize your "Domain class" is already the Introduce Parameter Object refactoring and not, in fact, a Layer Supertype, as I thought at 3AM.
I also realize that perhaps you need to reference the Model objects in the application code, outside the Presenter. Perhaps you're doing some initial setup of your Model objects before passing them in to the Presenter. If this is the case, your "Domain class" idea might be best. If there is some initial setup, when moving to an IoC, you'll want to look at something like Factory Support in Castle Windsor. (Other IoC containers have similar concepts.)
What are the best practices for implementing models in the MVC pattern. Specifically, if I have "Users" do I need to implement 2 classes. One to manage all the users and one to manage a single user. So something like "Users" and "User"?
I'm writing a Zend Framework app in php but this is more a general question.
The model should be driven by the needs of the problem. So if you need to handle multiple users, then a class representing a collection of Users might be appropriate, yes. However, if you don't need it, don't write it! You may find that a simple array of User objects is sufficient for your purposes.
That's going to be application and MVC implementation specific. You might well define a class collecting logically related classes, or you could define a static register on the user class. This is more of an OO question than MVC.
I'll second Giraffe by saying the use of included collections is almost always better than trying to write your own.
But I think your original question could be reworded a little differently... "Do I need a separate class to manage users other than the User class?
I use a static factory class to build all of my users and save them back to the database again. I'm of the opinion that your model classes need to be as dumbed down as possible and that you use heavy controller classes to do all of the work to the model classes.
I have two classes that each need an instance of each other to function. Ordinarily if an object needs another object to run, I like to pass it in the constructor. But I can't do that in this case, because one object has to be instantiated before the other, and so therefore the second object does not exist to be passed to the first object's constructor.
I can resolve this by passing the first object to the second object's constructor, then calling a setter on the first object to pass the second object to it, but that seems a little clunky, and I'm wondering if there's a better way:
backend = new Backend();
panel = new Panel(backend);
backend.setPanel();
I've never put any study into MVC; I suppose I'm dealing with a model here (the Backend), and a view or a controller (the Panel). Any insights here I can gain from MVC?
It's time to take a look at MVC. :-) When you have a model-view-controller situation, the consensus is that the model shouldn't be aware of the view-controller (MVC often plays out as M-VC), but the view is invariably aware of the model.
If the model needs to tell the view something, it does so by notifying its listeners, of which it may have multiples. Your view should be one of them.
In a circular construction scenario I'd use a factory class/factory method. I would normally make the construction logic private to the factory (using friend construct, package level protection or similar), to en sure that no-one could construct instances without using the factory.
The use of setter/constructor is really a part of the contract between the two classes and the factory, so I'd just use whichever's convenient.
As has been pointed out, you really should try to find a non-circular solution.
First of all, contrary to what others has said here, there's no inherent problem with circular references. For example, an Order object would be expected to have a reference to the Customer object of the person who placed the Order. Similarly, it would be natural for the Customer object to have a list of Orders he has placed.
In a refernce-based language (like Java or C#) there's no problem, at all. In a value-based language (like C++), you have to take care in designing them.
That said, you design of:
backend = new Backend();
panel = new Panel(backend);
backend.setPanel(panel);
It pretty much the only way to do it.
It's better to avoid circular references. I would personally try to rethink my objects.
panel = new Panel(backend);
You do this in this routine something like
Public Sub Panel(ByVal BackEnd as BackEnd)
Me.MyBackEnd = BackEnd
BackEnd.MyPanel = Me
End Sub
You don't need BackEnd.SetPanel
It is better to use Proxies. A proxy links one object to another through raising a Event. The parent hands the child a proxy. When the child needs the parent it calls a GetRef method on the proxy. The proxy then raises a event which the parent uses to return itself to the proxy which then hands it to the child.
The use of the Event/Delegate mechanism avoids any circular reference problems.
So you have (assuming that the backend is the 'parent' here)
Public Sub Panel(ByVal BackEnd as BackEnd)
Me.MyBackEnd = BackEnd.Proxy
BackEnd.MyPanel = Me
End Sub
Public Property MyBackEnd() as BackEnd
Set (ByVal Value as BackEnd)
priBackEndProxy = BackEnd.Proxy
End Set
Get
Return priBackEndProxy.GetRef
End Get
End Property
Here is a fuller discussion on the problem of circular references. Although it is focused on fixing it in Visual Basic 6.0.
Dynamic Memory Allocation
Also another solution is aggregating Panel and BackEnd into another object. This is common if both elements are UI Controls and need to behave in a coordinated manner.
Finally as far as MVC goes I recommend using a a Model View Presenter approach instead.
Basically you have your Form Implement a IPanelForm interface. It registers itself with a class called Panel which does all the UI logic. BackEnd should have events that Panel can hook into for when the model changes. Panel handles the event and updates the form through the IPanelForm interface.
User clicks a button
The form passes to Panel that the user clicked a button
Panel handles the button and retrieves the data from the backend
Panel formats the data.
Panel uses IPanelForm Interface to show the data on the Form.
I've been delaying implementing the lessons learned here, giving me plenty of time to think about the exact right way to do it. As other people said, having a clear separation where the backend objects have listeners for when their properties change is definitely the way to go. Not only will it resolve the specific issue I was asking about in this question, it is going to make a lot of other bad design smells in this code look better. There are actually a lot of different Backend classes (going by the generic class names I used in my example), each with their own corresponding Panel class. And there's even a couple of places where some things can be moved around to separate other pairs of classes into Backend/Panel pairs following the same pattern and reducing a lot of passing junk around as parameters.
The rest of this answer is going to get language specific, as I am using Java.
I've not worried a whole lot about "JavaBeans," but I have found that following basic JavaBean conventions has been very helpful for me in the past: basically, using standard getters and setters for properties. Turns out there's a JavaBean convention I was unaware of which is really going to help here: bound properties. Bound properties are properties available through standard getters and setters which fire PropertyChangeEvents when they change. [I don't know for sure, but the JavaBeans standard may specify that all properties are supposed to be "bound properties." Not relevant to me, at this point. Be aware also that "standard" getters and setters can be very non-standard through the use of BeanInfo classes to define a JavaBean's exact interface, but I never use that, either.] (The main other JavaBean convention that I choose to follow or not as appropriate in each situation is a no-argument constructor; I'm already following it in this project because each of these Backend objects has to be serializable.)
I've found this blog entry, which was very helpful in cluing me into the bound properties/PropertyChangeEvents issue and helping me construct a plan for how I'm going to rework this code.
Right now all of my backend objects inherit from a common class called Model, which provides a couple of things every backend in this system needs including serialization support. I'm going to create an additional class JavaBean as a superclass of Model which will provide the PropertyChangeEvent support that I need, inherited by every Model. I'll update the setters in each Model to fire a PropertyChangeEvent when called. I may also have JavaBean inherited by a couple of classes which aren't technically Models in the same sense as these but which could also benefit from having other classes registered as listeners for them. The JavaBean class may not fully implement the JavaBean spec; as I've said, there are several details I don't care about. But it's good enough for this project. It sounds like I could get all this by inheriting from java.awt.Component, but these aren't components in any sense that I can justify, so I don't want to do that. (I also don't know what overhead it might entail.)
Once every Model is a JavaBean, complete with PropertyChangeEvent support, I'll do a lot of code cleanup: Models that are currently keeping references to Panels will be updated and the Panels will register themselves as listeners. So much cleaner! The Model won't have to know (and shouldn't have known in the first place) what methods the Panel should call on itself when the property updates.