I have a question about the best practices of placing certain functions in controllers in an MVC web framework.
Lets say I have a User & Tags controller. I have a function/method called addTag_to_user().
What is the conventions or best practices for placing this in either the Users or Tags controller?
Though personally I am more inclined to place it in the tags controller as my Users controller may be full of other functions as it is a key element (for example). Thus placing it in the Tags controller improves the readability of the User controller.
Edit: Maybe it doesn't really matter where you place functions that deals with two models. I want to see what other people's conventions are.
The Controller object can hold behaviour which manipulates the Model domain. However, MVC normally has one controller for each domain, and it sounds like "User" and "Tag" belong in the same domain.
With the Information Expert Principle, Who has the information to fulfil this responsibility? A Tag has no idea about a User. The logical answer is that the User is responsible for his/her tag's. So your User Class would hold addTag() behaviour.
Related
When applying the MVC pattern to a design with multiple classes do I need to create a model, view and controller for each of the relevant classes?
For example, for a design with a domain with UserAccount class, a MultimediaContent class, etc, would I need to design a UserAccountModel, UserAccountView, UserAccountController, and a MultimediaContentModel, MultimediaContentView, MultimediaContentController, etc?
I've looked for examples online but they all use a single class.
In the he original MVC as decribed by its inventor a:
an application should have one controller
a controller can provide input and commands to several views,
an applications can manage multiple models.
This is is a very high level description because each of these main "components" could be made of multiple classes. So it is fully up to you to decide of the best mapping.
Other principles, such as the separation of concerns, would suggest to have different views for different model objects. So a UserAccount, and a UserAccountView is in general a sound approach. But you could still have combo views that refer to serveral different model objects at once.
You will find many more flavors of MVC regarding the controller. The single controller monopolizing the user input and controlling all the views and commanding the domains, is no longer a reality, since many windowing system attach the controller to a window. So you'd probably have a swarm of controller, with an AppController and an additional controller for each view, e.g. UserAccountViewController, rather than a controller per domain object.
Of course, in a very simple application, with a few relatively independent domain object, each having a single view, you could find the objects as you describe them.
A topic about single action controllers is in the laravel documentation:
https://laravel.com/docs/5.5/controllers#single-action-controllers
My question is, what is the use case where you will use this controllers? How will you structure your controllers if you opt to use single action controllers for all your controllers?
Michale Dyrynda seems to sum up the pupose of Single Action Controllers in his blog: https://dyrynda.com.au/blog/single-action-controllers-in-laravel
Conclusion
Single action controllers are an effective way to wrap up simple functionality into clearly named classes.
They can be used in instances where you're not necessarily following a RESTful approach; be careful not to separate multiple actions for a single entity across multiple controllers.
Where you might have previously used a single controller for multiple static pages, you could consider separate named controllers for each static pages.
You can add other methods to this class, but they should be related to the single action this controller is responsible for.
He also states that, you should only use these when you only need a single action for an entity:
You may consider naming the controller ShowPost as a way of being explicit about the controller's intent but I'd suggest caution with this approach; if you start seeing ShowPost, EditPost, CreatePost, etc controllers creeping into your codebase, I'd reconsider the RESTful approach. More controllers never hurt anybody, but we should be smart about when this is done!
This is an intresting question and my answer is not related to laravel, but to the single vs multiple actions per controller.
I have found when trying to find the use case for a pattern that is new, is to ask the inverse questions, in this case, when is the use case of multiple actions per controller make sense?
The answer usualy comes to:
You have an object that has crud operations (because your using sql)
and its convenient to place all the stuff related to that object in
one spot.
This is akin to the answer of "I have a hammer, so everything is a screw" and IF your domain is as simple as a thin layer over a crud database, then that is the use case for multiple actions per controller.
What I have found is that any amount of complexity blows up the controllers, no matter how good your model is. The reason is CRUD opperations are apart of your model, not your controller.
We usually think that we will map nicely to a CRUD model in our controller, there are many front end frameworks that work amazing at that, untill....
Look at the most common aspect of applications, users. In the setup your going to have index of users, which I don't know who would look at that page besides admins, and they usualy want extra information. so for the index action, you need admin custom authentication.
Then creation, well, it does not make sense to have an user create an user, you need to ensure the user is not authentication.
Now we talk about reading. What data an admin, other users, current user, and anon user can see is massivily differnt, and will slowly build up in complexity.
Then delete, this is normally rare action, and on some models not needed, but you still put it up, because, well you have a hammer.
The update, do you put password updates in here too? what if the user forgot there password? do you put that in here? No, you make a new action called forgot password.
Well now you need update password action. What goes in the update is usually a gigantic mess of hell after a year.
Each pattern has its pros and cons, my general advice is to do multiple actions per controller when your system is trully CRUD OR you will not have to maintain the project for more than a year. If you have any amount of complexity that will have to maintained, avoid the model leaking into the controller and keep them seperate.
I have a question concerning the structure of an MVC application. Suppose we have to realize a web-based application composed by several modules, such as shopping cart, store browser(end-user), store manager(admin) and so on.
It is of course possible to create one controller and use the routing to submit the requests to a specific controller's action method. However this would make the code quite messy and hinder the practice to vertically structure the application, namely to identify and distinguish which views, models and controllers are involved to fulfill a specific requirement (an example is given by Phil Haack).
Another approach is to use one controller for each application section, for instance one controller made available for end-user operations, another for the store administrator, another one for queries made by the shipping department and so on. The drawback to this approach is to have too many controllers that mess up your code, too dedicated for specific tasks and so difficult to reuse.
According to this two extreme situation, what is the best way to organize your controllers and routing policies? Do you use a structured approach or it depends on the type of application you are developing?
Thanks
Francesco
It is of course possible to create one controller and use the routing to submit the requests to a specific controller's action method. [...]
Another approach is to use one controller for each application section, [...]
You're overlooking a third alternative, which is the most common one. In general you should have one controller per resource. A resource is a model that is publicly exposed. In your specific storefront application, the resources would be things like Products, Orders, Customers, etc.
This is typically the proper level of abstraction, because controllers usually don't need to know about models other than the resources they touch. A controller that touches more than one resource should be viewed with some skepticism, since it's violating the single-responsibility principle.
You should try to follow REST as much as possible
Basically - that means controller for each 'collection' (Your entity).
If Your controllers will be RESTful, other parts (routing, views) will fit themselves accordingly.
In MVC, where is the correct place to put authorization code?
The controller?
The Model?
In the view?
All over the place?
I vote for putting it where it makes sense. Most of my authorization stuff is handled via decorating controller actions (or even some controllers) with the AuthorizeAttribute -- or an attribute derived from it. In a few cases -- like my menus -- I've resorted to putting the authorization check in the view code itself, rather than calculating it in each controller and passing flags down in ViewData. There are a few instances where certain aspects of the model are only available to particular roles and in those cases I've resorted to extending the model with methods that can take the current user and roles and do the check there.
I think authorization is a cross-cutting concern. Should be in one place - an aspect that can be declaratively applied where it's needed.
The Controller!
Your View should only handle user interface and display
Your Model should represent the data in your system.
Your Controller should handle the logic of how the system works.
Authorising a user involves taking the credentials provided from the View, checking them against some sort of authorisation list in the model and then performing a check.
This is done in the controller:
Get user credentials from View
if(compare with user list in model returns match)
authorise users
else
refuse access
If you have to choose between M, V or c, the C is the correct place. But, I recommend an architecture where your app is all contained in libraries and the UI is just a thin veneer. You end up calling down the stack from the Controller, but the code is not in the controller.
In MVC, the Model is just a model, or a "dumb data object", if you will. It is designed to hold state, and should not dictate behavior. The View is for the user to interact with and is also "dumb"; the view handles UI. The controller is where behavior sits, or is the entry point into behavior in the case where the app logic is in libraries. Make sense?
Model.
Controller is just for switching through different ways. View is just for... viewing.
So you should make all authorization codes in the Model layer. Ideally, everything will work just fine. If not, then the controller will take the user to the proper login box.
Question number three in my quest to properly understand MVC before I implement it:
I have two cases in mind:
The primary application
window needs to launch the
preferences window. (One View
invoking another View.)
The primary Model for an application
needs to access a property
in the preferences Model. (One Model
accessing another Model.)
These questions are related in that they both involve communication across Model-View-Controller triplets, a topic that I haven't found much discussion of in my Googling.
The obvious way to fix this is to wrap everything in a top-level "application" object that handles transactions between Models and allows Controllers to invoke one another's methods. I have seen this implemented, but I'm not convinced its a good idea. I can also see possibilities involving Controllers observing more than one Model and responding to more than one View, but this seems like its going to become very cluttered and difficult to follow.
Suggestions on how best to implement this sort of cross-talk? I feel like its a very obvious question, but I've been unable to find a well-documented solution.
On a broader note, if anyone has a link that shows typical approaches to these sorts of MVC issues, I would love to see it. I haven't had much luck finding solid, non-trivial references. Examples in Python would be lovely, but I'll gladly read anything.
Edit 1:
I see some pretty interesting things being said below and in general no-one seems to have a problem with the approach I've described. It is already almost a lazy form of the FrontController design that Vincent is describing. I certainly don't foresee any problems in implementing that pattern, however, it doesn't seem that anyone has really addressed the question in regards to communication amongst Models. All the answers seem to be addressing communication among objects in a single Model. I'm more interested in maintaining separate Models for separate components of the application, so that I'm not stuffing fifty state properties into a single Model class. Should I be maintaining them as sub-Models instead?
With respect to (1), views don't invoke other views. They invoke controller actions that may result in other views being rendered. In your case, the primary application window contains a user interface element (button, link) that invokes a controller action to display the preferences window.
With respect to (3), model components certainly could be related to one another. This isn't unexpected nor to be avoided, necessarily. For instance your Customer model may have an associated set of Orders. It would be perfectly natural to access the customer's orders via a method in the Customer class.
You might want to take a look at the MVC page on wikipedia for an overview.
You may want to consider looking up the Front Controller design pattern.
The Front Controller pattern defines a single component that is responsible for processing application requests. A front controller centralizes functions such as view selection, security, and templating, and applies them consistently across all pages or views. Consequently, when the behavior of these functions need to change, only a small part of the application needs to be changed: the controller and its helper classes.
This way all requests from the view goes to the FrontController who then decides which specific action (controller) to invoke. Sometimes, it could forward straight to another view as in your first case.
There is no problem with multiple objects in the model talking to each other. In fact that will be very common. The way I see it, all the objects in the Model act like one component to represent the data and operations on the data.
This article might help. And this one.
Model does not mean a single model object. The model is the subset of the entirety of your domain model which is directly related to the controller actions and the views in question.