I have a problem at the conceptual level, I read a lot but I'm not out yet.
I would like to model a system that plans to place orders and allows you to choose the products according to the selected location.
In the analysis phase it is right that is the user interface to request data to the classes product, location and orders?
In the design phase, can view access to multiple models and display the data or is more correct if the orderView access only to the order model and this takes all the data from the database (using different DAO for location, order and product)?
Thanks in advance, Vincenzo
An approach to solve this is to use a ViewModel (http://geekswithblogs.net/michelotti/archive/2009/10/25/asp.net-mvc-view-model-patterns.aspx), basically a composite model that groups several other models together so that they can be serviced to a view.
So if you have a Product model and a Location model and an Order model, all logically distinct models that you want to combine together on a single view (e.g. Monthly Sales Summary), you could create a SalesSummaryViewModel that contains products, orders, and locations to be returned to that view.
You should consider Model View ViewModel, have ViewModel objects created for serving your view needs, composing your business object.
There are no absolutes
In the design phase "is it right..." is the wrong thing to say. Design is an exercise in trade offs. At the end of my treatise I hope you conclude that we're splitting hairs on a sound design concept that you should be adhering to.
Separating UI from Data from Managing their interaction is a good design goal
Whether you use MVP, MVC, MVVM is largely an academic exercise in this forum because we don't have the overall design details.
For arguments sake, let's just call the basic idea MVC. MVP is a variation of that and MVVM (ViewModel) is a specialization of our MVP.
MVVM / ViewModel is .NET Specific
Model-View-ViewModel pattern was created by microsoft architects to take advantage of the capabilities of WCF, XAML, and Silverlight (vis-a-vis ASP.NET and Windows Forms). In the final analysis it's a variation of our basic concept, a variation that leverages .NET technologies to be sure.
Exposing Model to View
.. or not is a judgement call on how much coupling you want between your model view controller components.
MVC gives your view a reference to your model. This is handy for data binding. If you use .NET Binding architecture then this pattern is what you may end up using.
MVP - only the Presenter (a Controller w/ more power, if you will) sees the data model. You can still use .NET Binding architecture, for example, but the presenter is the middle man hooking it all up. Why? Because you made that informed decision based on your overall design.
MVP means the Presenter intimately knows about the View and Model so it can wire them together and handle UI inputs. It therefore follows that there is a Presenter for each View as they are customized pairs, (most likely) not interchangeable.
Development Tools can Influence Design Architecture
For example if you are developing in .NET WCF you absolutely have no choice but to use MVVM; that's the way that framework works.
Likewise, Mac OS X development IDE forces you to use MVC. So does Ruby On Rails and .NET MVC web development
If you are using some kind of Object Relational Mapper (ORM) - and .NET LINQ is one - then your design may not have a Data Access Layer per se.
If you need an example, this is done in the music store http://mvcmusicstore.codeplex.com/releases/view/64379#DownloadId=228002.
The details are around p95 of the associated PDF.
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'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.
Data binding establishes a direct coupling between the view and the model, thereby bypassing the controller. Fundamentally this breaks with the Model-View Controller architectural pattern, am I right in thinking this? Does this make data binding a "bad thing"?
Edit: As example, angular claims to be a MVC framework, yet one of its main features is data binding.
In my opinion Data Binding can be a valid implementation of the MVC Pattern since the data binding mechanism itself acts as the controller in that case.
For example in the mentioned angular it seems like the $watch function is a shortcut to implement features that are typical Controller responsibilities and features in an MVC-style way.
So in my opinion data binding is an evolution step that implements best practices learned by implementing classic MVC controllers.
UPDATE
But in original pattern sense I would characterize data binding more like MVP or Passive View.
But the differences aren't that sharp in my opinion since it always also depends on your UI technology.
Not necessarily, since you don't have to bind your Model objects to the view.
What I usually do is create simple DTOs (or Presentation Objects) that contain only the data I want to display, and that's what the View layer displays.
In that case, the Controller retains its function as a translator between actions performed on the DTOs and actions on the underlying Model entities.
Actually, when your data is abstracted properly, the act of pushing the content of your models to your UI is a repetitive task that normally lead to some kind of "helpers".
Let's say to push a list of items to a combobox. This is not necessarily part of the controller as you may want to share such functionality. Also pushing the value of the control (to keep it simple, let's say the text of a textbox) is repetitive and bi-directional.
Also here you repeat your self (think of DRY) and do the same thing over and
over again.
That's exactly the point where databinding comes into play. This can take over the tasks that anyway are identical for simple controls (checkbox, textbox, combobox). For grid control and the like it may be specific.
Have a look at mvc & databinding: what's the best approach?. Here I discuss what could be the optimum when using databinding in combination with MVC.
Data Binding does not directly couple the view and model, so it is not a Bad Thing®. It is an integral feature of the MVC architecture, which the GoF Design Patterns book describes succinctly in chapter 1.
MVC decouples views and models by establishing a subscribe/notify protocol between them. A view must ensure that its appearance reflects the state of the model. Whenever the model's data changes, the model notifies views that depend on it. In response, each view gets an opportunity to update itself. This approach lets you attach multiple views to a model to provide different presentations. You can also create new views for a model without rewriting it.
It's a common misconception that MVC is a layered (3-tier) architecture. It is not. The model updates the view(s) directly. But this does not mean the two are coupled! A publish/subscribe design keeps the model and view decoupled.
This more general design is described by the Observer design pattern.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I've heard the term MVC (Model View Controller) tossed about with a ton of Buzz lately, but what really is it?
You might want to take a look at what Martin Fowler has to say about MVC, MVP and UI architectures in general at Martin Fowlers site.
I like this article by Martin Fowler. You'll see that MVC is actually more or less dead, strictly speaking, in its original domain of rich UI programming. The distinction between View and Controller doesn't apply to most modern UI toolkits.
The term seems to have found new life in web programming circles recently. I'm not sure whether that's truly MVC though, or just re-using the name for some closely related but subtly different ideas.
MVC is a design pattern originally pioneered in the olden days of smalltalk.
The concept was that a model would represent your application state and logic, and controllers would handle IO between "Views".
A View was a representation of the state in the model. For example, your model may be a spreadsheet document, and you may have a view that represents it as a spreadsheet and a view that represents it as a pivot table.
Modern MVC has been polluted with fake MVC web junk, so I'll let others answer that.
Here is a naive description of MVC : http://www.devcodenote.com/2015/04/mvc-model-view-controller.html
A snippet:
Definition : It is a design pattern which separates an application into multiple layers of functionality.
The layers:
Model
Represents data.
It acts as an interface between the database and the application (as a data object).
It will handle validations, associations, transactions etc.
Controller
It gathers and processes data.
Handles code which does data selection and data messaging.
View
Displays output to the users.
MVC Design Pattern:
4 parts = User, View, Controller, Model.
User:
- sees the View and uses the Controller.
Model:
- holds the data and updates the Model that there is new data/state.
View:
- displays the data that the Model has.
Controller:
- takes the request from the user to get or set information, then communicates with either the View or Model, resp.
- it "gets" via the View.
- it "sets" via the Model.
As the tag on your question states its a design pattern. But that probably doesn't help you. Basically what it is, is a way to organize your code into logical groupings that keep the various pieces separate and easily modifiable.
Simplification:
Model = Data structure / Business Logic
View = Output layer (i.e HTML code)
Controller = Message transfer layer
So when people talk about MVC what they are talking about is dividing up there code into these logical groups to keep it clean and structured, and hopefully loosely coupled. By following this design pattern you should be able to build applications that could have there View completely changed into something else without ever having to touch your controller or model (i.e. switching from HTML to RSS).
There are tons and tons of tutorials out there just google for it and I'm sure you'll turn up at least one that will explain it in terms that click with you.
Wikipedia seems to describe it best so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-view-controller
Model-view-controller (MVC) is an architectural pattern used in software engineering. Successful use of the pattern isolates business logic from user interface considerations, resulting in an application where it is easier to modify either the visual appearance of the application or the underlying business rules without affecting the other. In MVC, the model represents the information (the data) of the application and the business rules used to manipulate the data; the view corresponds to elements of the user interface such as text, checkbox items, and so forth; and the controller manages details involving the communication to the model of user actions such as keystrokes and mouse movements
The MVC or Model-View-Controller User Interface Paradigm was first described by Trygve Reenskaug of the Xerox PARC. In first appeared in print in Byte magazine volume 6, number 8, in August of 1981.
This What is MVC blog article on Oreilly has you covered.
MVC is a software architecture pattern that separates representation from user interaction.
Generally, the model consists of application data and functions that interact with it, while the view presents this data to the user; the controller mediates between the two.
It is a way of separating the underlying functionality of your application (model) from the way it interacts with the user (view). The controller coordinates how the model and view talk to each other.
Whilst it is all the rage at the moment, it is important to remember that preventing the model itself being able to determine exactly how its data is presented to the user can seen as a negative thing. The most obvious example is with HTML. The original intention of HTML was that there should be a clear separation of the model (HTML) from the view (rendered webpage) via a controller (the browser). There has been such a backlash against this original intention that browsers are criticised if they do not render a page pixel perfect to the designer's desired view.
MVC is a way to partition a user interface element into 3 distinct concepts. The model is the data on which the interface operates. The view is how the element is represented visually (or maybe audibly?). The controller is the logic that operates on the data.
For example, if you have some text you want to manipulate in a UI. A simple string could represent the data. The view could be a text field. The controller is the logic that translates input from the user - say character or mouse input - and makes changes to the underlying data model.
Like many have said already, MVC is a design pattern. I'm teaching one of my coworkers now and have explained it this way:
Models - The data access layer. This can be direct data access, web services, etc
Views - The presentation layer of your application.
Controllers - This is the business logic for your application.
This pattern enhances test-driven development.