Here's my classdiagram:
In my perspective (since each cannot function without the next one):
models compose the repositories,
repositories compose the services,
the services compose the controllers.
I think I'm wrong in my understanding of UML relationships.
What is the right way to make a class diagram in MVC?
Terminology and semantics
If classes cannot function without another one, there is a dependency. A dependency does absolutely not imply composition.
In object oriented programming, we often refer to composition, in the sense object composition. This relationship is stronger than a simple dependency. It means that each object of the class may need to knwow objects of the other class. In UML we represent this with an UML association.
In some case, the links between objects are stronger, and may have UML aggregation or UML composition semantics. But it's not because you compose objects, that there is an UML composition. Same term, different meaning (some more advice on using UML association and composition and avoiding UML aggregation: here).
In MVC, the Controller is associated with the Views and the Model, and each Views is associated with the Model as well. There is no UML composition.
Notation
You cannot compose a class with a package. Packages describe namespaces and can be nested. They can contain other UML elements. But they cannot be associated/aggregated/composed with classes.
What you are looking for seems to be a component diagram: components can be nested, and be relate to other components via interfaces. And a component can contain classes.
Content of your diagram
There seem to be a slight confusion between the DDD domain model and the MVC model. Despite the same term, the two concepts are different.
In MVC, the Model manages the knowledge, meaning the domain model and everything needed to cope with the domain model:
User, Transfer and Tax are DDD domain entities/aggregates and belong to the MVC model
Everything needed to persist this knowledge, such as UserRepository, TransferRepository, TaxRepository also belongs to the MVC model. If you'd use another persistance approache (e.g. table gateways, or active objects) you would not have repositories but other objects.
The MVC Controller processes the user input, and sends commands to views and the model. It is not a repetition of the domain objects.
Where are the views ? What is the purpose of your services ?
are they domain service, i.e. operation that involve several aggregates and do not naturally belong to any single one of them ?
are they a service layer of an application, meant to link it with the outside world?
After a comment of this question. I started to research but I am still confused.
Entities should convert to Dto before return to controller? To me it sounds not really practical.
We are talking about software architecture and as always when we are talking about software architecture there are a thousand ways of doing something and many opinions about what is the best way. But there is no best way, everything has advantages and disadvantages. Keep this in mind!
Typically you have different layers:
A persistence layer to store data
Business layer to operate on data
A presentation layer to expose data
Typically, each layer would use its own kind of objects:
Persistence Layer: Repositories, Entities
Business Layer: Services, Domain Objects
Presentation Layer: Controllers, DTOs
This means each layer would only work with its own objects and never ever pass them to another layer.
Why? Because you want each layer to be separated from the other layers. If you would use entities in your controller, your presentation would depend on how your data is stored. That's really bad. Your view has nothing to do with how the data is stored. It shouldn't even know that or how data is stored.
Think of that: You change your database model, e.g. you add a new column to one of your database tables. If you pass the entities to your controller (or worse: your controller exposes them as JSON), a change at the database would result in a change in your presentation. If the entities are directly exposed as JSON, this might even result in changes in JavaScript or some other clients which are using the JSON. So a simple change in the database might require a change in the JavaScript front end, because you couple your layers very tight. You definitely don't want that in a real project.
How? You doubt that this is practical, so just a small example of how to do that in (pseudo) code:
class Repository {
public Person loadById(Long id) {
PersonEntity entity = loadEntityById(id);
Person person = new Person();
person.setId(entity.getId());
person.setName(entity.getFirstName + " " + entity.getLastName());
return person;
}
}
In this example, your repository would use entities internally. No other layer knows or uses this entities! They are an implementation detail of this particular layer. So if the repository is asked to return a "person", it works on the entity, but it will return a domain object. So the domain layer which works with the repo is save in the case the entities need to be changed. And as you can see in the case of the name, the domain and the database might be different. While the database stores the name in first name and last name, the domain only know a single name. It's a detail of the persistence how it stores the name.
The same goes for controllers and DTOs, just another layer.
I have to gradually replace an ASP.NET Web Forms application with an ASP.NET MVC3 layered application. Let's take into consideration just the Repository layer.
In my new MVC application I have one project for Data (name MVC.Data) and one for Web.
In the MVC.Data I have an edmx file with the EF classes, which models just the DB table (no views), and a Respository class myRepository which provides methods that perform simple queries.
In the old Web Forms application I have a GridView which is filled using as DataSource an SQL database view.
In order to have the same result in my new MVC3 application, I have two options:
1) Create a Service layer (and project MVC.Services), where I have a method that fill a new class myViewClass which contains all the fields of the SQL DB view and give it to the controller.
2) Create a class within the MVC.Data project which is directly filled by its constructor by using LINQ statements directly against the EF classes.
I read about the factory pattern and the 1st solution seems the most appropriate, however many people always suggest not to create a Service Layer if it is not needed. What is the best choice in this case?
Actually building the view model should be done in a mapping layer. Basically your controller action might look like this:
public ActionResult Index()
{
SomeDomainModel model = repository.GetSomeDomainModel();
SomeViewModel vm = Mapper.Map<SomeDomainModel, SomeViewModel>(model);
return View(vm);
}
The view model is defined in the MVC project as it is a class that is specifically designed to meet the requirements of the given view.
The Mapper.Map<TSource, TDest> method I have shown in my answer comes from AutoMapper which I use in my project but you could define any custom mapping layer you like.
The mapping layer must also be part of the MVC project as it must be aware of both your domain models and your view models in order to perform the mapping.
As far as the service layer is concerned, you could use one when you have some complex business operations which could be composed of multiple simple repository calls. But some might argue for the existence of a service layer at all. I think that both approaches have their pros and cons that must be evaluated when designing a system and most importantly take into consideration the specific context and scenario you are designing.
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'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.