I'm quite new to Prism. I'm studying QuickStarts shipped with it as well as other examples on the net. Almost all of them make modules aware of what region their view(s) get dropped into. Typically, the method Initalize of a module has a line like the the following.
RegionManager.Regions["LeftRegion"].Add(fundView);
I feel quite uncomfortable with that. There's a similar discussion but I think that it should be the responsibility of the shell component to define such mapping. However, I cannot find any example of such approach and I'm not sure whether the bootstrapper is the right place to put such mapping in.
Is this approach completely wrong?
Nothing is completely wrong. But it makes no sense to have the shell/bootstrapper (that by design doesn't know anything about the application it will host) knows what view goes into which region.
Consider an application that can be extended by simply adding modules into a given folder. When you follow the approach that the module knows where it's views want to reside (the mapping is done in Initialize()), this is no problem. I designed my first Prism application that way.
But if your mapping is done in your shell you always have to update your shell (which is part of the base application, not any module) when you want to add another module. This runs contrary to the loosely coupling paradigm. Besides that you have to create one base application for every module constellation. And there are (2^number of modules) permutations you have to cover. That results in loosing your flexibility you gained by using Prism.
Related
This question could apply to all languages and frameworks but I'm looking for something a bit more 'cocoa specific'. I come from a Java background and I've noticed that learning objective-c is a lot more than just syntax, it's almost a completely different way of thinking.
What I've been having the most trouble with, must be the way one has to organise your classes. Sure all basic OOP(Object Oriented Programming) rules apply, and using MVC patterns where you can is recommended. But with me being used to Java I just need to set a few things straight and make sure I've got the right idea:
So for the sake of simplicity let just focus on one part of an app - Logging a user in. You'd have your .xib file for the UI (called Login.xib), you'd have your class that handles your data (connecting to a web service, called LoginModel.m) and you'd have your controller that acts as the middle man between your front-end and data (Called LoginController.m).
Is this is a pretty good example of applying MVC to a Cocoa app? And if it is, does that mean that you'd have 6 files created for this (since you have header files and implementation files). 6 files just to handle something simple as logging a user in. You can imagine how many you'd end up with for an entire app, even the most simplest of ones...
So my question is - Am I doing something wrong? Do I have the wrong idea? Or is the idea of too many files and too long method names just something I need to get used to since my brain is still working in 'Java Mode'?
Your ideas on how to handle that outlined above are fully correct. There is nothing bad about having a lot of files in the project. It does help a lot when you want to reuse code or if for example login details change and you don't want to edit multiple code locations.
Nevertheless, you may combine in such simple cases model class and controller class, especially if your model data can for example be stored in an NSDictionary and such. Only if you have complex model objects, that will run a lot of their own code, it will be better to separate them out.
Variable and method names can't be too long ;) always use a good name that especially describes the functionality or task. You usually don't have to type them often, but Xcode autocomplete will deal with that easily.
i'm wondering if there is a pattern how to separate the domain logic of a class from the ui responsibilities of the objects in the domain layer.
Example:
// Domain classes
interface MachinePart
{
CalculateX(in, out)
// Where do we put these:
// Draw(Screen) ??
// ShowProperties(View) ??
// ...
}
class Assembly : MachinePart
{
CalculateX(in, out)
subParts
}
class Pipe : MachinePart
{
CalculateX(in, out)
length, diamater...
}
There is an application that calculates the value X for machines assembled from many machine parts. The assembly is loaded from a file representation and is designed as a composite. Each concrete part class stores some data to implement the CalculateX(in,out) method to simulate behaviour of the whole assembly. The application runs well but without GUI. To increase the usability a GUi should be developed on top of the existing implementation (changes to the existing code are allowed). The GUI should show a schematic graphical representation of the assembly and provide part specific dialogs to edit several parameters.
To achieve these goals the application needs new functionality for each machine part to draw a schematic representation on the screen, show a property dialog and other things not related to the domain of machine simulation. I can think of some different solutions to implement a Draw(Screen) functionality for each part but i am not happy with each of them.
First i could add a Draw(Screen) method to the MachinePart interface but this would mix-up domain code with ui code and i had to add a lot of functionality to each machine part class what makes my domain model hard to read and hard to understand.
Another "simple" solution is to make all parts visitable and implement ui code in visitors but Visitor does not belong to my favorite patterns.
I could derive UI variants from each machine part class to add the UI implementation there but i had to check if each part class is suited for inheritance and had to be careful on changes to the base classes.
My currently favorite design is to create a parallel composite hierarchy where each component stores data to define a machine part, has implementation for UI methods and a factory method which creates instances of the corresponding domain classes, so that i can "convert" a UI assembly to a domain assembly. But there are problems to go back from the created domain hierarchy to the UI hierarchy for showing calculation results in the drawing for example (imagine some parts store some values during the calculation i want to show in the schematic representation after the simluation).
Maybe there are some proven patterns for such problems?
Agree with #Marjin, and to generalise his answer. What you need is Model-View-Controller of which MVP and MVVM are variants. From your comments I think you understand that, but need to understand how to implement the pattern. Without knowing your language & target architecture it's hard to give absolute specifics. Notwithstanding, I'd start with the Observer pattern (link has sample code).
The problem you're dealing with is how to provide observable access from the domain to the UI - without encumbering the domain with UI-specific code. Observer provides a means to do that. It does require domain changes, in particular to enable registration of observers and notification of changes. However there's nothing GUI-specific in that so it stays well encapsulated.
hth.
PS: If your app is a typical thin-client web app you'll need to modify the approach. And beware: lots of web app frameworks are advertised as "MVC", but the implementation is architecturally quite different to the Observer pattern.
You can take a look at the model-view-presenter (mvp) and model-view-viewmodel (mvvm) patterns.
Fowler's presentation model includes two sample applications; it also might be of interest to you.
I think that investigating these patterns will give you some ideas on how to continue. Mvvm looks a lot like your current solution; so i'd start there if I were you.
Maybe a View Helper can help. It's not a C++, but a Java EE pattern, but in your case it will definitely separate your domain objects from their presentation details...
I'm working on a joomla component that includes building a schedule. On any given day it needs to look at a set of rules (day of the week, date of the year, type of event) and return all of the possible start times. It would make sense to have a class that calculates these things, but I'm not sure it fits in the model or controller (and certainly not view) categories. Am I supposed to create a com_myproject/lib (or similar name) and have joomla auto-load the classes?
I'm new to joomla and started with the framework/project provided at http://docs.joomla.org/Building_Joomla_Extensions_with_Apache_Ant.
You should create a helper class. Have a look here for an example, albeit it is for a module, but the same concept applies.
You might want to start off with Developing a Model-View-Controller Component - Part 1 tutorial and work your way through that by hand. Using Apache Ant to learn how write an extension is like taking a canon to shoot fish in the barrel. It can be done but probably not the best way of doing it.
The Joomla! MVC pattern is very peculiar and difficult to understand. I don't quite understand it myself. I was advised on the developer email list to look at how other components are put together. Guess what? All the other developers do it differently, with some of the bigger components looking like spaghetti code in their organization.
The bulk of your component code should be in the controller, either as part of the controller class or a separate class file that's imported in. You don't need a separate library directory unless you're working on a big component with multiple class files. This Joomla! thread might be applicable.
I have another programmer who I'm trying to explain why it is that a UI component should not also be a data-structure.
For instance say that you get a data-structure that contains a record-set from the "database", and you wish to display that record-set in a UI component within your application.
According to this programmer (who will remain nameless, he's young and I'm teaching him...), we should subclass the data-structure into a class that will draw the UI component within our application!!!!!!
And thus according to this logic, the record-set should manage the drawing of the UI.
******Head Desk*****
I know that asking a record-set to draw itself is wrong, because, if you wish to render the same data-structure on more than one type of component on your UI, you are going to have a real mess on your hands; you'll need to extend yet another class for each and every UI component that you render from the base-class of your record-set;
I am well aware of the "cleanliness" of the of the MVC pattern (and by that what I really mean is you don't confuse your data (the Model) with your UI (the view) or the actions that take place on the data (the Controller more or less...okay not really the API should really handle that...and the Controller should just make as few calls to it as it can, telling it which view to render)) But it's certainly alot cleaner than using data-structures to render UI components!
Is there any other advice I could send his way other than the example above? I understand that when you first learn OOP you go through "a stage" where you where just want to extend everything.
Followed by a stage when you think that Design Patterns are the solution every single problem...which isn't entirely correct either...thanks Jeff.
Is there a way that I can gently nudge this kid in the right direction? Do you have any more examples that might help explain my point to him?
Have you heard of Martin Fowler?
Separating User Interface
Code
Anyway, if he wants to go further in that direction of adding render methods to his data controls, have him look at "loose coupling". It's okay to create some generic type of interface that gets him halfway there, but the UI component should take it the rest of the way.
This boils down to functional vs. non-functional responsibilities. What the data structure does and how it's visualized are two completely separate things -- essentially the root of the MVC pattern.
There's also a notion of circular dependencies here. Since the UI must know about the data structures, if you allow the data structures to then depend on the UI, you've got yourself a nice little ball of mud.
Generally on the point of decoupling:
Not only can there be different components of the UI rendering the same data structure. You may even have completely different UIs (Web, Desktop Application, ...) Now of course, you could subclass Person with WebPerson and DesktopPerson (this already sounds wrong, doesn't it? The naming is simply not about the kind of Person - it's about something else).
Each UI could work on different kinds of Persons, e.g. Teacher and Student. So we get WebPerson, WebTeacher, WebStudent, DesktopPerson, DesktopTeacher and DesktopStudent.
Now let's say, WebPerson defines the method "drawAddressFields()" to draw a web version of the address fields. But since WebTeacher has to derive from Teacher to use the additional data field "salary" (and let's assume single inheritance), it must implement "drawAddressFields()" once again!
So maybe the argument of "this will cause much more work" will help to create some motivation :-)
BTW, it will automatically lead to creating some delegate that implements the code of drawAddressField(), which will then evolve to creating a component that does the drawing separately from the data structure.
I just read a blog post that explains MVC with a banking analogy. I have a few months of experience with web application development with an MVC framework (CakePHP), so I get the basics, but I began to see a theme that made me think I'm taking a flawed approach to where I put my logic:
Fat models, skinny controllers
Keep as much business logic in the models as possible
In my app, models are anorexic and controllers are obese. I have all business logic in the controllers and nothing besides associations and validation rules in the models.
Scanning through my controllers, I can now identify a lot of logic that should probably go in a model:
The app has lists, which contain items, and the items can be ranked. The sorting logic which puts the list in ranked order is in a controller.
Similarly, items (Item model) also have images (Image model). Each item may have a default image (designated by image_id in the items table). When an item is displayed with its images, the default image should appear first. I have the logic that does this in a controller.
When a list is displayed, related lists are displayed in the sidebar. The logic to determine which lists are related is in a controller.
Now to my questions:
With the examples I gave above, am I on the right track in thinking that those are instances of logic presently in a controller that belongs in a model?
What are some other areas of logic, common to web apps, that should go into models?
I'm sure identifying this problem and changing my design pattern is half the battle, but even if I decide to take those examples I gave above and try to move that logic to a model, I wouldn't know where to begin. Can anyone point me in the right direction by posting some code here, or linking to some good learning resources? CakePHP specific help would be great, but I'm sure anything MVC will suffice.
It's a bit tough to give you the "right" answers, since some of them deal with the specifics of the framework (regardless of the ones you are working with).
At least in terms of CakePHP:
Yes
Anything that deals with data or data manipulation should be in a model. In terms of CakePHP what about a simple find() method? ... If there is a chance that it will do something "special" (i.e. recall a specific set of 'condition'), which you might need elsewhere, that's a good excuse to wrap inside a model's method.
Unfortunately there is never an easy answer, and refactoring of the code is a natural process. Sometimes you just wake up an go: "holy macaroni... that should be in the model!" (well maybe you don't do that, but I have :))
I'm using at least these two 'tests' to check if my logic is in the right place:
1) If I write a unittest, is is easy to only create the one 'real' object to do the test on (= the object that you are using in production) and not include lots of others, except for maybe some value objects. Needing both an actual model object and an actual controller object to do a test could be a signal you need to move functionality.
2) Ask myself the question: what if I added another way to use these classes, would I need to duplicate functionality in a way that is nearly copy-paste? ... That's also probably a good reason to move that functionality.
also interesting: http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html