My MVC app tends to have a lot of ajax calls (via JQuery.get()). It's sort of bugging me that my controller is littered with many tiny methods that get called via ajax. It seems to me to be sort of breaking the MVC pattern a bit--the controller is now being more of a data access component then a URI router.
I refactored so that I have my 'true' controller for a page just performing standard routing responses (returing ActionResponse objects). So a call to /home/ will obviously kick up the HomeController class that will respond in the canonical controller fashion by returning a plain-jane View.
I then moved my ajax stuff into a new controller class whose name I'm prefacing with 'Ajax'. So, for example, my page might have three different sections of functionality (say shopping cart or user account). I have an ajax controller for each of these (AjaxCartController, AjaxAccountController). There is really nothing different about moving the ajax call stuff into its own controller class--it's just to keep things cleaner. on client side obviously the JQuery would then use this new controller thusly:
//jquery pseudocode call to specific controller that just handles ajax calls
$.get('AjaxAccount/Details'....
(1) is there a better pattern in MVC for responding to ajax calls?
(2) It seems to me that the MVC model is a bit leaky when it comes to ajax--it's not really 'controlling' stuff. It just happens to be the best and least painful way of handling ajax calls (or am I ignorant)?
In other words, the 'Controller' abstraction doesn't seem to play nice with Ajax (at least from a patterns perspective). Is there something I'm missing?
While you might put Controller on the end of it to make ASP.NET MVC's routing magic work, I tend to do what you've already done--except when I read AjaxCartController I think to myself AjaxCartPresenter (as in the Model-View-Presenter pattern commonly seen in WinForms). That is, this "controller" is not controlling but instead unashamedly tied to the view interface. But, unlike the view, the controller presenter is testable.
When we AJAXify a Web page, we're turning it into something that can react in a fine-grained manner, so fine-grained methods are okay. Fined-grainedness is the point and the whole reason it was invented. We are deliberately walking away from REST for a particular scenario because that particular pattern is not solving the UI requirement at hand, instead choosing an RPC-like model. They are just patterns, one is not going to be better than the other in all situations, even if our technology stack might be pushing us toward one over the other. (Indeed, HTTP itself does better in chunks/pages/entities/representational state transfer documents.)
Mentally, you can treat these pages as if they were forms in a WinForms application; the fact that these methods sit in a "controller" is just an artifact of and concession toward the technology being used. (If it super-duper bothers you, you could roll the AJAX methods into an IHttpHandler and bypass MVC entirely, but why throw away the automatic routing/instantiation/method lookup and make it difficult for yourself? It would be architecturally 'clean' and pure but of dubious benefit.)
... at least, that's how I rationalize it to myself =)
If you have too many fine-grained requests, you might want to have one Controller Action method to service all the calls. You might use a 'switch' in the method to determine the call type and service it accordingly instead of having a zillion tiny methods. You might even use explicit string constants instead of numbers for the switch variable.
Related
Until now, in my MVC application, I've been using the Model mainly just to access the database, and very little else. I've always looked on the Controller as the true brains of the operation. But I'm not sure if I've been correctly utilizing the MVC model.
For example, assume a database of financial transactions (order number, order items, amount, customer info, etc.). Now, assume there is a function to process a .csv file, and return it as an array, to be inserted into the database of transactions.
I've placed my .csv parse function in my Controller, then the controller passes the parsed information to a function in the Model to be inserted. However, strictly speaking, should the .csv parsing function be included in the Model instead?
EDIT: For clarity's sake, I specifically am using CodeIgniter, however the question does pertain to MVC structure in general.
The internet is full of discussion about what is true MVC. This answer is from the perspective of the CodeIgniter (CI) implementation of MVC. Read the official line here.
As it says on the linked page "CodeIgniter has a fairly loose approach to MVC...". Which, IMO, means there aren't any truly wrong ways to do things. That said, the MVC pattern is a pretty good way to achieve Separation of Concerns (SoC) (defined here). CI will allow you to follow the MVC pattern while, as the linked documentation page says, "...enabling you to work in a way that makes the most sense to you."
Models need not be restricted to database functions. (Though if that makes sense to you, then by all means, do it.) Many CI developers put all kinds of "business logic" in Models. Often this logic could just as easily reside in a custom library. I've often had cases where that "business logic" is so trivial it makes perfect sense to have it in a Controller. So, strictly speaking - there really isn't any strictly speaking.
In your case, and as one of the comments suggests, it might make sense to put the CSV functionality into a library (a.k.a. service). That makes it easy to use in multiple places - either Controller or Model.
Ultimately you want to keep any given block of code relevant to, and only to, the task at hand. Hopefully this can be done in a way that keeps the code DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself). It's up to you to determine how to achieve the desired end result.
You get to decide what the terms Model, View, and Controller mean.
As a general rule MVC is popular because it supports separation of concerns, which is a core tenet of SOLID programming. Speaking generically (different flavors support/ recommend different implementations), your model holds your data (and often metadata for how to validate or parse), your view renders your data, and your controller manages the flow of your data (this is also usually where security and validation occur).
In most systems, the Single Responsibility Principle would suggest that while business logic must occur at the controller level, it shouldn't actually occur in the controller class. Typically, business logic is done in a service, usually injected into the controller. The controller invokes the service with data from the model, gets a result that goes into the model (or a different model), and invokes the view to render it.
So in answer to your question, following "best practices" (and I'll put that in quotes because there's a lot of opinions out there and it's not a black and white proposition), your controller should not be processing and parsing data, and neither should your model; it should be invoking the service that processes and parses the data, then returning the results of aforementioned invocation.
Now... is it necessary to do that in a service? No. You may find it more appropriate, given the size and complexity of your application (i.e. small and not requiring regular maintenance and updates) to take some shortcuts and put the business logic into the controller or the model; it's not like it won't work. If you are following or intend to follow the intent of the Separation of Concerns and SOLID principles, however (and it's a good idea on larger, more complex projects), it's best to refactor that out.
Back to the old concept of decomposing the project logic as Models and Business Logic and the Data Access Layer.
Models was the very thin layer to represent the objects
Business Logic layer was for validations and calling the methods and for processing the data
Data Access Layer for connecting the database and to provide the OR relation
in the MVC, and taking asp.net/tutorials as reference:
Models : to store all the object structure
View: is like an engine to display the data was sent from the controller ( you can think about the view as the xsl file of the xml which is models in this case)
Controller: the place where you call the methods and to execute the processes.
usually you can extend the models to support the validations
finally, in my opinion and based on my experience, most of the sensitive processes that take some execution time, I code it on the sql server side for better performance, and easy to update the procedures in case if any rule was injected or some adjustments was required, all mentioned can be done without rebuilding your application.
I hope my answer gives you some hints and to help you
If your CSV processing is used in more than one place, you can use a CI library to store the processing function. Or you can create a CSV model to store the processing function. That is up to you. I would initially code this in the controller, then if needed again elsewhere, that is when I would factor it out into a library.
Traditionally, models interact with the database, controllers deal with the incoming request, how to process it, what view to respond with. That leaves a layer of business logic (for instance your CSV processing) which I would put in a library, but many would put in its own model.
There is no hard rule about this. MVC, however it was initially proposed, is a loose term interpreted differently in different environments.
Personally, with CI, I use thin controllers, fat models that also contain business logic, and processing logic like CSV parsing I would put in a library, for ease of reuse between projects.
Could someone concisely summarize which responsibilities should be handled with Ember's routing system?
After 2 weeks with Ember, I suddenly feel like I don't have an accurate grasp of what routing does. It looks kind of does everything; establishing urls, setting arbitrary controllers/templates/etc, forwarding routes, pre/post load events for models, etc.
The broad capabilities of Ember Routing leave me uncertain what should be handled by the router vs an MVC object. The official docs (http://emberjs.com/guides/routing/) do a good job of explaining how to do many things, but kind of prevents me from seeing the forest for the trees...
A Conceptual Model
One way to think about it is that Routes & Controllers are both controllers in the MVC nomenclature. Controllers are concerned with controlling the connection between Models and their display, and getting data into and out of them, and Routes are concerned with controlling the connection between Models, between Models and the application, and between Models and their persistence layer.
Application: the granddaddy model
In this view Application is the granddaddy model (and it is always there: even if you don't explicitly refer to it there is an ApplicationRoute and ApplicationController being anonymously created). So naturally, routes control the connection between the Application and other Models.
The Most Common Setup
For a given model, there will typically be (as a basic starting point) two Routes and two Controllers. One Route manages the retrieval of a collection of the Model, and a corresponding Controller connects that collection to a view of the collection, and another Route manages the choosing of a single instance of the Model, binding it to a controller that manages its connection to a view.
Who handles Actions?
Views, Routes and Controllers can all intercept and handle actions. They each have a special ability that the others do not.
The Controller Special Ability
The special ability of Controllers is that they know about the specific instance or collection of a Model that the action concerns. If an action comes to a controller it is generally originating in a view element concerned with that controller's model. So, actions defined on controllers should do something with a model or model collection. If an action does not care about a model/collection, it probably belongs on a Route.
The Route Special Ability
The special ability of Routes is that they know the hierarchy into which models/collections have been organized. This means that they can do things involved with navigation more naturally than controllers can.
The View Special Ability
The special ability of Views is that they know about the interface, and events animation etc.
Handling Actions with multiple Handlers
Although it is not necessary, I often split an action into two (or even three) handlers, often with the same name. In the case of two, one handler lives on a Controller, and does the part of the action concerned with selecting, querying, or otherwise talking to a Model. The other handler lives on a route and is concerned with the navigational part of the action. When actions are split up this way, you find your app becomes easier to refactor, and you have to do less gymnastics to accommodate "weirdness" in the html structure of your views (in particular for negative actions like cancel or deselect).
Sometimes a third handler lives on the View and does jquery-ish things or css animation. In each case when a component has done their part of an action, it uses send to forward the action to the next component that should deal with it. Typically that means View->Controller->Route.
Summary
So to sum up, Routes should focus on managing the retrieval of models and the connections between them and between them and your app, handling the parts of actions concerned with navigation and app state. Controllers should focus on managing the connection of models with html view elements, handling the parts of actions concerned with choosing/unchoosing/modifying a particular model or model collection (note: choosing is usually switching to a new route, and handled by a Route. But sometimes controllers handle non-route choices, like setting an attribute on one model by choosing an item from a list of another model). Views should handle the parts of actions concerned with changing the html they represent, ie, animation, css changes that reflect state, etc.
I found a very concise and explanatory blogpost about routing: http://hashrocket.com/blog/posts/ember-routing-the-when-and-why-of-nesting
Understanding the proper use of the Router in an Ember.js app is a fundamental core concept of the framework. The docs tell us that the router translates a URL into a series of nested templates and almost all available tutorials show how to nest routes as part of an explanation of how the Router works.
This is great when you want a UI where a list of items are present at
the same time a single item is shown. This leaves many beginners
struggling, however, as they try and replace the entire contents of a
page with another route’s template. Today we’ll explore two ways to
tackle this problem.
I'm scratching the surface with Angularjs, and thought I'd run a conceptual question past the fine folks of SO. This is a newbie question from a seasoned developer.
The application has dashboard requirements... a single page that surfaces stuff from many parts of the application. Different user types get different dashboards. We already have a legacy back end, so the first task is to build the dashboard to show many bits from it's new RESTful service layer.
I'm wondering how I should conceptually think about the controllers needed to support this?
The first question is... should they be model-centric or view-centric? In other words, should they be "view-centric" controllers that have the word "Dashboard" in them? Or should they be more focused on the model elements they represent, like "Tasks", "Contacts", "Notifications". Or should there be both where the dashboard controllers work with model-centric controllers?
The next question is... what level of granularity should the controllers represent? If view-centric "Dashboards" controllers, should they be "ManagerDashboardController" and "WorkerDashboardController"? If model-centric controllers, should there be controllers such as "LateTasks" & "OnTimeTasks" since I need to display them on different sections of the dashboard, with slightly different data?
I'm looking for tangible advice based on real-world experience and/or references to great links I've yet to find.
Here are my views from developing business applications in Angular for the past 6 months:
Role of a Controller
Initialization (loading initial data, setting options)
Exposing variables and functions to the template through the $scope
Application flow (through exposure of functions that can change state, or $watches)
I have found that, much like in traditional MVC frameworks, the controllers in an Angular app should really be super slim. Little if any business logic should be in the controllers, and should be instead be encapsulated in your models. I came to this conclusion after hearing the follow line from a presentation by Miško Hevery: "the purpose of the scope is to refer to the model and not be the model." That was the most valuable and enlightening line I got from that presentation (though I recommend to watch the whole video); that line directly resulted in me slimming down my controllers by almost 50%-70%.
For example, my company has a concept of an Order. I created a model that encapsulated all the properties of this business object, as well as its behaviours and injected them into the controllers. One business rule we had was the ability to add a Booking (another business object) to the Order. Originally in my controller, I had a $scope.addBooking function that first created a new Booking, then took the order and did a $scope.order.bookings.push(newBooking). Instead, I moved this business logic (addBooking function) directly into my Order model, and in the template I could then do something like <button ng-click="order.addBooking()">Add Booking</button> without adding a single line of code into my controller.
A lot of the code I put in my controllers when I was first starting off with angular, I found could be stripped out and placed either in my models, directives, or services (mostly the first two in my case). The remainder of the code left in my controllers almost all fell into one of the above 3 roles I listed above. It was either initialization code (e.g. firing an AJAX request to fetch data of the relevant business objects), scope assignment of objects, or scope assignment of functions that dealt with application flow (e.g. $scope.save or $scope.cancel that might send you back to a different page).
Should controllers be model-centric or view-centric?
This is an interesting question, one that I haven't thought about before. When I hear view-centric, I think of a controller that deals primarily with the view and how things are displayed. I feel there shouldn't be any controllers that are purely view-centric, the reason being it seems a view-centric controller can probably be transformed into a directive. You mentioned view-centric controllers as being like a Dashboard controller, which sounds like something that could definitely be made into a generic directive. Your directives should encapsulate most of your view logic, while your controllers focus on simply exposing your models to the view for consumption (back to the role of the controller). This has me thinking that controllers should more often be model-centric.
I think really the only conclusion I can come to is if a controller starts becoming too view-centric (with many variables and functions that deal primarily with the view and UI behaviour) then that is a sign that parts of your controller can be pulled out into a directive, making your controller slimmer.
This is very subjective but here is my answer to your questions
should controllers be model-centric or view-centric?
It depends (as always), I always try to have small controllers for the different parts of the page.
Some parts of the page are very view-centric (typically the ones that are shared among the different views). I usually have a menuCtrl, a headerCtrl and footerCtrl. This ctrls are very coupled to those parts of the page so a make them view-centric.
The other parts of the view, the ones that are business related are much more coupled to the business rules and in extension to the model so I make those ctrls model-centric. On an account´s business app, I would probably have an accountCtrl, an ownerCtrl, and so on. By doing so I can reuse them on different views if needed (and are much easier to test)
what level of granularity should the controllers represent?
The smallest as possible. Try to have small controllers that prepare the model for different parts of the page. If you have a big controller it will be hard to test, maintain and you will probably be forced to duplicate code on different parts of your application.
advices and recomentations with controllers
Keep them small.
Avoid DOM manipulation inside of them (use directives instead).
Use the controllers just to prepare the model. whenever possible delegate all the logic of your app to services. If you do so, it won´t really matter that much if your controller is view-centric or model-centric.
As I said before this is a very subjective matter and I´m sure many people will disagree with me.
I hope this could help you.
Basic Idea
So I'm actually in the process of migrating a legacy code base over to a restful based web service architecture utilizing AngularJs
Controllers are responsible for managing the data that is consumed by the view aka the webpage. My personal preference is that there is a one to one relationship between the controller and the view that it is serving. So, based on the question, Angular controllers should be more view centric. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who will disagree with me though.
If you are worried about the extensibility of this pattern, you should place your business logic and data access within Angular Services as described here. This offers you a tremendous amount of reuse of business logic operations as well as unit testability.
TLDR;
The specifications for Angular are changing all the time and with each new version there will be a new standard. A more view centric architecture looks appropriate for this application.
For some more complete reading on the subject I recommend checking out:
3 Tips To Building Enterprise Grade Angular/Node Applications
Lessons Learned: A Year with a Large AngularJS Project
JQuery’s AJAX “.get” method calls a (php page)method of a controller and the returned data is further processed….but then as we consider it a best practice, controllers are meant to just transfer control to the models and views..A controller never returns anything or echoes any data…so how can we support this argument? I may be wrong..still in the initial learning stages so pardon me if you find the question a bit too naive :(.
One eg. is JQuery’s autocomplete plugin that I was trying to implement which expects an array of users name from the database. Generally, with CI..the flow is View form -> Controller -> Database Model(DATA) -> Controller (DATA)-> Another view…but if I have to implement the JQuery/AJAX way then the controller will have to output data so that the AJAX calling function (get) can grab it. Right?
So what should be the flow without affecting the MVC paradigm?
Regards.
MVC is just a design pattern. It tends to make things easier. But its a way of designing your applications, that doesn't mean you have to stick to it.
I work with Codeigniter and use controllers to reply to ajax. In my case the controller is in charge of receiving the request, and sending data back (just as if I was calling a view or template).
Don't overthink it, use what you want,when you want to, the way best fits your needs.
The other option if you really want to stick to mvc is to have a view which you simply use for ajax responses.
You can either have it simply echo the response, or you can have it json_encode() you response if you are always going to be replying using json.
As Nicolás points out, MVC is a design pattern, not law.
However, you should think of AJAX not as a View but as a transport, a medium through which communication between Controller and View or Model and View happens. Thus your actual View is not represented in PHP anymore but by the Browser itself, or rather its JavaScript code that you are running on it. You can abstract away the AJAX on the PHP side using an RPC server like the Zend JSON-RPC Server.
Also note that for Web Applications, the Model-View-Presenter and similar patterns may be more useful as it keeps communication between View and Presenter.
Could anyone give an example of why it would be advantageous to use MVC instead of a simpler Model and a View only.
Note: whether it's called MVC or MVP (Model-View-Presenter), I'm talking about the one where the View receives input, then the Controller will respond to the input event by interpreting the input into some action to be done by the Model. When the model changes, the View will update itself by responding to events from the model.
What is disadvantageous of simply letting the Model respond to events in the View and vice versa?
In MVC, if I changed the model in a way that affects the controller then I'll have to do changes in the controller. In Model-View, if I change the Model, I'll have to update the view.
So, it seems like we are introducing complexity by adding the "controller" part?
In MVC, the Model is blind to its environment, the view can be too - passing off (blindly) its events to the controller, which knows more about the view and model. So when all is said and done, the controller is the 'non-reusable' disposable part of the system, since it is the most context aware component.
if I changed the model in a way that affects the controller...
The the model should expose simple CRUD methods in such a way that those using the methods do not have to know anything about the passed update object, nor what really happens inside the model.
This means that the view, IMO, has to do a bit of work by creating the passed record, since Controllers are supposed to be stateless and the view is more persistent. Controllers get triggered and 'kick-in' do their work with a passed object and do not have a state.
The passed data is created by some sort of generic convention.
Let me go even further. Suppose you have a view, a tablegrid, and a control whose enabled property is dependent on item is selected in the grid -- you COULD create a view that handles both those controls and this logic internally, and that would probably be the way to go in such a simplified example.
But the more atomic your views are, the more reusable they become, so you create a view for every, yes every, control. Now you are looking at a situation where views have to know about each other in order to register themselves for the right notification...
This is where the controller steps in, since we want to stick all these dependencies onto him, the long term disposable one. So the controller manages this type of view-to-view notification scheme.
Now your views are ignorant as they can be and independent, thus reusable.
You can code a view without having to know about the system, or the 'business logic' as they like to call it. You can code a model without having to know too much about your goals (though it does help to tweak the model to enable it to return the datasets you have in mind).... but controllers, they are last and you have to have the previous two firmed up before you can wire things together.
Here is another thing to think about -- just as the Model is supposed to abstract-away and provide a generic interface to the underlying implementation of the data it is managing (the client does not know if the data comes from a DB, a file, a program setting, etc) -- the view should also abstract away the control it is using.
So, ultimately this means a view should not (caveat below) have functions/properties that look like this:
public property BackgroundColor{get;set}
Nor
public function ScrollBy(x,y){}
But instead:
public SetProp(string name, object val){}
And
public DoCmd(string name, object val){}
This is a bit contrived, and remember I said ultimately... and you ask why is this a good idea?
With reusability in mind, consider that you may one day want to port things from WinForms to, say, Flex, or simple want to use a new-fangled control library that may not expose the same abilities.
I say 'port' here, but that is really not the goal, we are not concerned with porting THIS particular app, but having the underlying MVC elements generic enough to be carried across to a new flavor -- internally, leaving a consistent and ability-independent external interface intact.
If you didn't do this, then when your new flavor comes along, all your hard references to view properties in the (potentially reusable/refactorable/extendable) controllers have to be mucked with.
This is not to mean that such generic setters and cmds have to be the interface for all your views abilities, but rather they should handle 'edge case' properties as well as the normal props/cmds you can expose in the traditional hard-link way. Think of it as an 'extended properties' handler.
That way, (contrived again), suppose you are building on a framework where your buttons no longer have buttonIcon property. Thats cool because you had the foresight to create a button view interface where buttonIcon is an extended property, and inside the view your conditional code does a no-op now when it receives the set/get.
In summary, I am trying to say that the coding goals of MVC should be to give the Model and View generic interfaces to their underlying components, so when you are coding a Controller you don't have to think to hard about who you are controlling. And while the Controllers are being (seemingly unfairly) set up to be the sacrificial lamb in the long run of re-usability -- this does not mean ALL your controllers are destined for death.
They are hopefully small, since a lot of their 'thinking' has been shoved off into semi-intelligent Models and Views and other controllers (ex: Controller to Sort a Grid or Manipulate a TreeView) -- so being small they can be easily looked at and qualified for reuse in your next project -- or cloned and tweaked to become suitable.
It actually reduces complexity by separating the workflow logic from the domain logic. It also makes it easier to write unit tests and makes your application easier to maintain and extend.
Imagine if you wanted to add a new data type. With the approach above, you would probably duplicate a lot of the workflow logic in the new class as it would be likely to be tightly coupled to the domain logic.
The discipline involved in separating the workflow logic into the controller makes it more likely that you will have fewer dependencies between workflow and domain logic. Adding a new data type would then be more simple, you create the new domain object and see how much of the controller you can reuse, e.g. by inherited from a controller super class.
It would also make it easier to change frameworks in future - the model would probably not change too much and so would be more portable.
Having said that, you might want to look into MVVM depending on what you are using as your presentation layer: Benefits of MVVM over MVC
Advantages of MVC/P (I am talking about Supervising Controller here) over MV include:
You can handle complex data binding code in the controller, if required.
You can test that complex presentation logic without a UI testing framework.
You can also have a graphic designer make your views, and not see your code, and not mess up your code when they fix your views.