I am writing a GUI based application where I read a string of values from serial port every few seconds and I need to display most of the values in some type graphical indicator(I was thinking of QprogressBar maybe) that displays the range and the value. Some of the other data that I am parsing from the string are the date and fault codes. Also, the data is hierarchical.
I wanted to use the model/view architecture of Qt because I have been interested in MVC stuff for a while but have never quite wrapped my brain around how to implement it very well.
As of now, I have subclassed QAbstractItemModel and in the model I read the serial port and wrap the items parsed from the string in a Tree data structure. I can view all of the data in a QtreeView with no issues.
I have also began to subclass QAbstractItemView to build my custom view with all of the Graphical Indicators and such. This is where I am getting stuck. It seems to me that in order for me to design a view that knows how to display my custom model the view needs to know exactly how all of the data in the model is organized. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of Model/View? The QTreeView I tested the model with is basically just displaying the model as it is setup in the Tree structure but I don't want to do that because the data is not all of the same type. Is the type of data or the way you would like to present it to the user a determining factor in whether or not you should use this architecture? I always assumed it was just always better to design in an MVC style.
It seems to me like it might have been better to just subclass QWidget and then read in from the serial port and update all of subwidgets(graphical indicators, labels, etc...) from the subclass. Essentially, do everything in one class.
Does anybody understand this issue that can explain to me either what I am missing or why I shouldn't be doing it this way. As of now I am a little confused.
Thanks so much for any help!
** ** - Is this a situation where Qt Model/View architecture is not useful?
I"m going to say not necessarily - end edit
I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but let me try.
First, let's talk about MVC display pattern. This pattern is all about breaking the program into separate (and hopefully testable) sections that have their own areas of concerns.
The model is data structures that describe your data. I'm sure that there is some statistical data is also present. It is important that the model not know anything about how the data is going to be displayed to the user.
The View is how information is presented to user. It is not suppose to care about how the data is presented for displaying. It is important for this layer to be unaware of how the model gets the data for display.
The control logic is the "glue" to connects the first two items together. This is the layer that holds all the "messy" stuff to make to good user experience. EDIT - Most of what QT calls a "view item" I would probably put in the controller layer.
But if you do this, then the model and controller layers become very testable.
With that being said, many of your points are not really related to MVC pattern. You seem to be discussing what is the optimum way to display the data. This is always a problem. And without seeing your app, I'm not really going to try to tell you what is going to look good.
But by following good MVC pattern design, you can make pretty significant revision to the display without effecting the underling code.
This being said, I'm dealing with this exact issue right now and this pattern is working well form me. If you go to codeplex.com and search for mvvm (model-view-viewmodel, term used in WPF), you will see a number of projects that use it that you can use to get more information.
If this is not enough, let me know and I may be able to give you a better answer.
Related
I asked this question to get some opinions on the subject of glue code.
For example, imagine you have a class (pseudocode):
class MyClass
int attribute a
string attribute b
And to represent that data model, you have BOTH a slider and a text box to represent a, and a text box and say... the window label to represent b.
Obviously, when one of these view objects is changed, you want to update the others. However, updating the entire view is obviously inefficient.
method onSomethingHappened(uiObject)
model.appropriateAttribute = uiObject.value
The question is, what is your opinion on what to do next? Should the model object implement a callback that notifies a listener when the value has been changed, allowing one to write glue code like:
method modelChangedCallback(model, attribute)
uiObject1.value = model.a
uiObject2.value = model.a
Where you might examine what the attribute that changed is, and respond accordingly? This is the model in Objective-C and Cocoa on Mac, for the most part.
OR, would you rather have the responsibility lie completely in the glue code?
method onSomethingHappened(uiObject)
model.appropriateAttribute = uiObject.value
self.updateForAttribute("appropriateAttribute")
Both of these approaches can get pretty hairy (as is the problem with glue code) when your project gets large. Maybe there are other approaches. What do you think?
Thanks for any input!
For me I think it comes down to where the behavior is needed. In the situation you describe, the fact that you are binding multiple controls to a property is what is driving the requirement, so it doesn't make sense to add code to the model to support that.
In a web-based model I would probably put the logic in the web page since that can be done rather cheaply using Javascript. If I don't have that luxury (i.e. I'm dealing with a "dumb" view), then it would probably make sense to do it in the controller, or model glue code. If this sort of thing becomes common enough, I may go as far as creating some form of generic helper to reduce the amount of boiler-plate code I have to deal with.
I think that the terminology used in Qt with model/view controls is flawed. On their explanation page they state, that they simplified the MVC to MV by merging View and Controller and they are giving the following picture:
However I think, they misnamed the roles of objects and I think that,
What they call View with merged Controller is in fact a View only.
What they call Model is in fact Controller only.
If you really want to have a model it would be somewhere where their "Data" is.
I am speaking about usual and sane way you would use Qt model/view component in your app.
Here are the reasons:
This is typically Qt component which is used as is, without adding any Controller logic specific to your objects)
This is hardly a Model, just because you should implement several Qt methods like rowCount, columnCount, data etc. which have nothing to do with your model. In fact there are typical model methods found in Controllers. Of course, you can implement both Controller and Model logic here, but first it would be quite bad code design and secondly you would merge Controller and Model not Controller and View as they state.
As said in reason 2. if you want to separate Model logic that it is surely not the blue box on the picture, but rather the dashed "Data" box (communicating to real Data of course).
Is Qt wrong in their terminology, or it is just me who does not understand? (BTW: The reason why it is not academic question is that I have started to code my project following their naming and I have soon found out, that the code clearly is not right. It was only after that when I realized, that I should not try put Model logic in what they call Model)
Short answer
Qt's MVC only applies to one data structure. When talking about an MVC application you should not think about QAbstractItemModel or QListView.
If you want an MVC architecture for your whole program, Qt hasn't such a "huge" model/view framework. But for each list / tree of data in your program you can use the Qt MVC approach which indeed has a controller within its view. The data is within or outside of the model; this depends on what type of model you are using (own model subclass: probably within the model; e.g. QSqlTableModel: outside (but maybe cached within) the model). To put your models and views together, use own classes which then implement the business logic.
Long answer
Qt's model/view approach and terminology:
Qt provides simple views for their models. They have a controller built in: selecting, editing and moving items are something what in most cases a controller "controls". That is, interpreting user input (mouse clicks and moves) and giving the appropriate commands to the model.
Qt's models are indeed models having underlying data. The abstract models of course don't hold data, since Qt doesn't know how you want to store them. But you extend a QAbstractItemModel to your needs by adding your data containers to the subclass and making the model interface accessing your data. So in fact, and I assume you don't like this, the problem is that you need to program the model, so how data is accessed and modified in your data structure.
In MVC terminology, the model contains both the data and the logic. In Qt, it's up to you whether or not you include some of your business logic inside your model or put it outside, being a "view" on its own. It's not even clear what's meant by logic: Selecting, renaming and moving items around? => already implemented. Doing calculations with them? => Put it outside or inside the model subclass. Storing or loading data from/to a file? => Put it inside the model subclass.
My personal opinion:
It is very difficult to provide a good and generic MV(C) system to a programmer. Because in most cases the models are simple (e.g. only string lists) Qt also provides a ready-to-use QStringListModel. But if your data is more complex than strings, it's up to you how you want to represent the data via the Qt model/view interface. If you have, for example, a struct with 3 fields (let's say persons with name, age and gender) you could assign the 3 fields to 3 different columns or to 3 different roles. I dislike both approaches.
I think Qt's model/view framework is only useful when you want to display simple data structures. It becomes difficult to handle if the data is of custom types or structured not in a tree or list (e.g. a graph). In most cases, lists are enough and even in some cases, a model should only hold one single entry. Especially if you want to model one single entry having different attributes (one instance of one class), Qt's model/view framework isn't the right way to separate logic from user interface.
To sum things up, I think Qt's model/view framework is useful if and only if your data is being viewed by one of Qt's viewer widgets. It's totally useless if you're about to write your own viewer for a model holding only one entry, e.g. your application's settings, or if your data isn't of printable types.
How did I use Qt model/view within a (bigger) application?
I once wrote (in a team) an application which uses multiple Qt models to manage data. We decided to create a DataRole to hold the actual data which was of a different custom type for each different model subclass. We created an outer model class called Model holding all the different Qt models. We also created an outer view class called View holding the windows (widgets) which are connected to the models within Model. So this approach is an extended Qt MVC, adapted to our own needs. Both Model and View classes themselves don't have anything to do with the Qt MVC.
Where did we put the logic? We created classes which did the actual computations on the data by reading data from source models (when they changed) and writing the results into target models. From Qt's point of view, this logic classes would be views, since they "connect" to models (not "view" for the user, but a "view" for the business logic part of the application).
Where are the controllers? In the original MVC terminology, controllers interpret the user input (mouse and keyboard) and give commands to the model to perform the requested action. Since the Qt views already interpret user input like renaming and moving items, this wasn't needed. But what we needed was an interpretation of user interaction which goes beyond the Qt views.
I agree with you that Qt's naming is misleading. In my opinion however, the problem is not Qt's alone, but is shared by all frameworks that allow us to adhere to the principle of separation of concerns when implementing our UIs. When someone comes up with such a framework, and finds a good way to keep "things" separated, they always feel obliged to have modules that they call "Model" and others that they call "View". Over the years I have worked with these frameworks:
MFC
Qt
Swing
SWT
WPF with MVVM
If you compare how the terms "Model" and "View" are used in these frameworks, and what responsibilities the classes in the "View", the "Model", and the "Controller" (if there is one) have, you will find that there are very big differences. It would certainly be useful to have a comparison of the different concepts and terminologies, so that people switching from one framework to another have a chance to stay sane, but that would require a lot of work and research. A good read is Martin Fowler's overview.
Since there are so many different ideas what an MVC pattern can look like, which one is correct? In my opinion, the people who invented MVC should be turned to when we want to know how it is supposed to be implemented "correctly". In the original smalltalk paper it says:
The view manages the graphical and/or textual output to the portion of the bitmapped display that is allocated to its application. The controller interprets the mouse and keyboard inputs from the user, commanding the model and/or the view to change as appropriate. Finally, the model manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller).
In light of that I would answer your three main concerns thusly:
In fact a Qt component "manages the graphical [...] output", and "interprets the mouse and keyboard inputs", so it could indeed be called merged View and Controller with respect to the definition above.
I agree that you are/would be forced to merge Controller and Model (again with respect to the definition above).
I agree, again. The Model should only manage the data of the application domain. This is what they call "data". Clearly, dealing with rows and columns for example has normally nothing to do with our applications domain.
Where does it leave us? In my opinion, it is best to figure out what Qt really means when the terms "Model" and "View" are used and use the terms in their manner while we are programming with Qt. If you keep being bothered it will only slow you down, and the way things are set up in Qt does allow elegant design - which weighs more that their "wrong" naming conventions.
The terminology isn't right or wrong, it's useful or useless.
You might change the question a bit and ask why Qt isn't more MVC-friendly. The answer to is that the early Qt developers believe that decoupling V from C in GUI applications makes for bad Vs and Cs both. QWidget's design tries to make it simple to bind mouse input interperation closely with pixel output decisions, and you can see how that's not the road towards MVC.
As Model function is to respond to requests for information, I think there is nothing wrong in defining such methods as rowCount, columnCount, etc. I think Model is some kind of wrapper for data source (no matter what is it SQL table or just an array), it provides data in standard form, and you should to define methods depends on your data source structure.
I believe their terminology is correct...although in real applications I find it can be very easy to blur the lines between model, view, and controller depending on your level of abstraction: one level's view may be a higher level's model.
I feel the confusion arises from their QAbstractModelItem class. This class isn't a model item, but rather it is an interface to a model. To make their view classes interface with the model, they had to create a generic abstract interface to the model. However, a model can be a single item, a list of items, a table of 2 or more dimensions of items, etc; so their interface has to support all these model variations. Admittedly, this makes the model items fairly complex, and the glue code to make it work with an actual model does seem to stretch the metaphor a bit.
I think that ... What they call Model is in fact Controller only.
No, their "model' is definitely not a controller.
The controller is the part of user visible controls that modify the model (and therefore indirectly modify the view). For example, a "delete" button is part of the controller.
I think there is often confusion because many see something like "the controller modifies the model" and think this means the mutating functions on their model, like a "deleteRow()" method. But in classic MVC, the controller is specifically the user interface part. Methods that mutate the model are simply part of the model.
Since MVC was invented, its distinction between controller and view has become increasingly tense. Think about a text box: it both shows you some text and lets you edit it, so is it view or controller? The answer has to be that it is part of both. Back when you were working on a teletype in the 1960s the distinction was clearer – think of the ed – but that doesn't mean things were better for the user back then!
It is true that their QAbstractItemModel is rather higher level than a model would normally be. For example, items in it can have a background colour (a brush technically), which is a decidedly view-ish attribute! So there's an argument that QAbstractItemModel is more like a view and your data is the model. The truth is it's somewhere in between the classic meanings of view and model. But I can't see how it's a controller; if anything that's the QT widget that uses it.
I have another programmer who I'm trying to explain why it is that a UI component should not also be a data-structure.
For instance say that you get a data-structure that contains a record-set from the "database", and you wish to display that record-set in a UI component within your application.
According to this programmer (who will remain nameless, he's young and I'm teaching him...), we should subclass the data-structure into a class that will draw the UI component within our application!!!!!!
And thus according to this logic, the record-set should manage the drawing of the UI.
******Head Desk*****
I know that asking a record-set to draw itself is wrong, because, if you wish to render the same data-structure on more than one type of component on your UI, you are going to have a real mess on your hands; you'll need to extend yet another class for each and every UI component that you render from the base-class of your record-set;
I am well aware of the "cleanliness" of the of the MVC pattern (and by that what I really mean is you don't confuse your data (the Model) with your UI (the view) or the actions that take place on the data (the Controller more or less...okay not really the API should really handle that...and the Controller should just make as few calls to it as it can, telling it which view to render)) But it's certainly alot cleaner than using data-structures to render UI components!
Is there any other advice I could send his way other than the example above? I understand that when you first learn OOP you go through "a stage" where you where just want to extend everything.
Followed by a stage when you think that Design Patterns are the solution every single problem...which isn't entirely correct either...thanks Jeff.
Is there a way that I can gently nudge this kid in the right direction? Do you have any more examples that might help explain my point to him?
Have you heard of Martin Fowler?
Separating User Interface
Code
Anyway, if he wants to go further in that direction of adding render methods to his data controls, have him look at "loose coupling". It's okay to create some generic type of interface that gets him halfway there, but the UI component should take it the rest of the way.
This boils down to functional vs. non-functional responsibilities. What the data structure does and how it's visualized are two completely separate things -- essentially the root of the MVC pattern.
There's also a notion of circular dependencies here. Since the UI must know about the data structures, if you allow the data structures to then depend on the UI, you've got yourself a nice little ball of mud.
Generally on the point of decoupling:
Not only can there be different components of the UI rendering the same data structure. You may even have completely different UIs (Web, Desktop Application, ...) Now of course, you could subclass Person with WebPerson and DesktopPerson (this already sounds wrong, doesn't it? The naming is simply not about the kind of Person - it's about something else).
Each UI could work on different kinds of Persons, e.g. Teacher and Student. So we get WebPerson, WebTeacher, WebStudent, DesktopPerson, DesktopTeacher and DesktopStudent.
Now let's say, WebPerson defines the method "drawAddressFields()" to draw a web version of the address fields. But since WebTeacher has to derive from Teacher to use the additional data field "salary" (and let's assume single inheritance), it must implement "drawAddressFields()" once again!
So maybe the argument of "this will cause much more work" will help to create some motivation :-)
BTW, it will automatically lead to creating some delegate that implements the code of drawAddressField(), which will then evolve to creating a component that does the drawing separately from the data structure.
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.
I just read a blog post that explains MVC with a banking analogy. I have a few months of experience with web application development with an MVC framework (CakePHP), so I get the basics, but I began to see a theme that made me think I'm taking a flawed approach to where I put my logic:
Fat models, skinny controllers
Keep as much business logic in the models as possible
In my app, models are anorexic and controllers are obese. I have all business logic in the controllers and nothing besides associations and validation rules in the models.
Scanning through my controllers, I can now identify a lot of logic that should probably go in a model:
The app has lists, which contain items, and the items can be ranked. The sorting logic which puts the list in ranked order is in a controller.
Similarly, items (Item model) also have images (Image model). Each item may have a default image (designated by image_id in the items table). When an item is displayed with its images, the default image should appear first. I have the logic that does this in a controller.
When a list is displayed, related lists are displayed in the sidebar. The logic to determine which lists are related is in a controller.
Now to my questions:
With the examples I gave above, am I on the right track in thinking that those are instances of logic presently in a controller that belongs in a model?
What are some other areas of logic, common to web apps, that should go into models?
I'm sure identifying this problem and changing my design pattern is half the battle, but even if I decide to take those examples I gave above and try to move that logic to a model, I wouldn't know where to begin. Can anyone point me in the right direction by posting some code here, or linking to some good learning resources? CakePHP specific help would be great, but I'm sure anything MVC will suffice.
It's a bit tough to give you the "right" answers, since some of them deal with the specifics of the framework (regardless of the ones you are working with).
At least in terms of CakePHP:
Yes
Anything that deals with data or data manipulation should be in a model. In terms of CakePHP what about a simple find() method? ... If there is a chance that it will do something "special" (i.e. recall a specific set of 'condition'), which you might need elsewhere, that's a good excuse to wrap inside a model's method.
Unfortunately there is never an easy answer, and refactoring of the code is a natural process. Sometimes you just wake up an go: "holy macaroni... that should be in the model!" (well maybe you don't do that, but I have :))
I'm using at least these two 'tests' to check if my logic is in the right place:
1) If I write a unittest, is is easy to only create the one 'real' object to do the test on (= the object that you are using in production) and not include lots of others, except for maybe some value objects. Needing both an actual model object and an actual controller object to do a test could be a signal you need to move functionality.
2) Ask myself the question: what if I added another way to use these classes, would I need to duplicate functionality in a way that is nearly copy-paste? ... That's also probably a good reason to move that functionality.
also interesting: http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html