I know that an MVC framework allows you to separate business logic, data base access and presentation, but why do we need a framework to do this.
Can't we just keep our classes separated, perhaps using different packages/folders for the model, view and controller classes?
In my opinion the thing you are talking about is the MVC pattern and not a specific framework. Of course you can go and keep all your classes within one project and still use the MVC pattern, as you have all your UI code in the views, the logic in the controllers, ...
A MVC framework on the other hand makes it easier for you to use this pattern. It may provide some base classes for controllers and a mechanism for the communication between view and controller.
I don't know if you are familiar with ASP.NET MVC. The framework itself is very small, but it helps you developing an application with the MVC pattern, as you don't have do think about the previously decribed areas...
Hope this helps
An MVC framework is a framework written to split up the the business logic, database access and presentation.
This is very useful in most web applications, and now lately into software/desktop applications.
This is due to the fact that following the MVC model, your code will be much clearer, cleaner and you keep your application DRY (Do not Repeat Yourself).
You can write your own classes and separate them into Model, View and Control. But again, you will need a framework to help you in accomplishing certain tasks. Like a List control in ASP.NET, or PHP framework being able to help you translate text between languages and so on. (Oh why reinvent the wheel?!)
MVC and framework is a different thing. MVC is just an architectural pattern, which can be applied with any project, with or without framework.
So you don't need a framework to do this. You can separate them by yourself. :)
MVC stands for “MODEL” “VIEW” “CONTROLLER”. ASP.NET MVC is an architecture to develop ASP.NET web applications in a different manner than the traditional ASP.NET web development. Web applications developed with ASP.NET MVC are even more SEO (Search Engine) friendly.
Developing ASP.NET MVC application requires Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5 or higher.
Model:
MVC model is basically a C# or VB.NET class.
A model is accessible by both controller and view.
A model can be used to
pass data from Controller to view.
A view can use model to display
data in page.
View:
View is an ASPX page without having a code behind file.
All page specific HTML generation and formatting can be done inside view.
One can use Inline code (server tags ) to develop dynamic pages.
A request to view (ASPX page) can be made only from a controller’s action method
Controller:
Controller is basically a C# or VB.NET class which inherits system.mvc.controller.
Controller is a heart of the entire MVC architecture.
Inside Controller’s class action methods can be implemented which are responsible for responding to browser OR calling views.
Controller can access and use model class to pass data to views
Controller uses ViewData to pass any data to view.
MVC is a code organization architecture style to organize your code-logic in a meaningful way for web applications. As a programmer I have almost puked when I have inherited other people's code when their code logic is all over the place and following their web application code turns into following a rabbit down the gutter hole. Why MVC? hmm.. well why should I use a filing cabinet or folders to organize my plethora of paper and not just have my papers stashed in a large pile and have others figure how they connect to each other. It increases code readability. With MVC it becomes very easy to follow code logic since you are following standard structure for a web application. Business logic is separated out from UI. Easier to delegate work decouple work on a project.
You can of course approach it yourself by segregating your classes. A framework supplies common scaffolding that you wouldn't have to build yourself. But it will also impose some structure on your code. You'll have to evaluate whether the framework helps more than it hurts.
You are correct, there are strategies that you can implement to help with separation of concerns without using MVC.
Microsoft's ASP.NET MVC framework is one strategy that can be employed, and that is what I think you are asking about.
This MVC framework makes such separation of concerns easy.
The other major advantage of MVC is testability - (depends on whether you believe in unit testing - I do).
The MVC framework ensures that all orchestration logic is on your controllers and through the FormControls collection allows full unit testing of all aspects of your application except for how it is presented.
As the MS MVC framework encourages adherence to common rules and structure of the application which should lead to greater maintainability.
The major downside of MVC is the code-in-front code weaving required for presentation, but this can be easily overcome.
Perhaps this is just a linguistic thing. I've seen "frameworks" referring to themselves as a DSL -- Domain Specific Language.
And you don't need a framework But here's something to consider: You already know for a web app you're going to want to do a few common things... route URLs, render pages, etc. Why re-write it all? For other problem domains you'll have generic things to do as well.
Hai Friends There are somemany types of architecture frame work has been there,firstly i know 2tier and 3 tier frame work ,the 3 tier and mvc ,entity framework are same but in different name's,so study a good background in any one architecture there fore if you went to any multinational companies ,you can easly score/highlight to your carrer.
Model View Controller or MVC as it is popularly called, is a software design
pattern for developing web applications. A Model View Controller pattern is made
up of the following three parts:
**Model** - The lowest level of the pattern which is responsible for maintaining data.
**View** - This is responsible for displaying all or a portion of the data to the user.
**Controller** - Software Code that controls the interactions between the Model and View
Related
I'm trying to learn dependency injection. The book/example I am following seems to be using an MVC project as just the UI layer within a broader architecture. The example includes a separate project for the domain layer and yet another project for the data access layer.
When I first learned MVC I came away thinking MVC was the entire architecture. V for view for UI layer, C for controller for domain layer, and M for model for data access layer.
So is using an MVC project as only the UI layer a proper and/or commonly accepted application of the MVC framework?
So is using an MVC project as only the UI layer a proper and/or commonly accepted application of the MVC framework?
Yes.
While it is possible to make an application entirely within the context of ASP.NET MVC, doing so means that the application will have to be written from scratch to use a different UI framework. Isolating the business logic into a separate set of services that are not coupled to ASP.NET MVC means that only the top layer would need to be replaced to move to a different UI framework, which also means that the application's lifecycle may extend beyond the end of ASP.NET MVC and/or it can be made into an application with a different UI framework (WebApi, WPF, etc) without too much trouble.
The purpose of dependency injection is to decouple your services from all other parts of the application, including each other. So by extension, it is only natural to build the business layer separately from the UI layer. Whether you physically have them in one assembly or multiple is really just a matter of preference.
Applying SRP to the MVC design pattern will lead you there. Same goes for MVVM. You are extracting logic from Model to other classes like Interactors, Services, Repositories etc.
From any point of view this is perfectly normal(and desirable). Your Model is just an abstraction of Several different layers.
I would suggest you to take a look at VIPER (not a car) - https://www.objc.io/issues/13-architecture/viper/ and you will see something that is occuring to you right now.
I am trying to build set of reusable components for the ASP.Net MVC3 application.
Each component is consisted of it's own model, view and controller.
The interaction between components should be solved using mediator "like" pattern.
Since the components are higher level concept (abstraction) and not "real" objects (technically component is short-lived bunch consisted of a model, view and controller functions), it is probably tricky to implement
mediator pattern.
I need good ideas how to technically implement mediator interaction between components using ASP.Net MVC3 and AJAX?
My initial question with initial problem: MVC modular GUI components
I would keep the controllers and views as simple and possible and create a service layer where all the interactions with other components and logic sits. Also I would create a separate project for the services layer so if you want to build different types of interfaces ( phone apps etc ) you can still use the same services layer. This would also enable some automated testing to check on the logic and interaction between your components. Hope this helps.
Is to possible to have a layout for web-based architecture based on MVC where SOA is the architectural style. Or to rephrase, can services be part of the M,V, C of MVC.If so, what kinds of services can be included in each of them. Also, can you give me a real world example?
In a SOA application you are typically not including the front end (presentation layer). You are consuming those services in your MVC application, or better yet in a separate "model" project that the MVC application uses.
Data Access -> Business Logic -> Services -> Models -> MVC
The point is to use the services to create an abstraction around the base of your application to allow for multiple clients to consume those services.
I tend to term the Model as represented in the client/presentation layer as the ViewModel, it is simply the presentation layers view of the model. Not the actual Domain model.This is needed in a SOA as the context of the consumer of the Model changes often
In SOA`s we try to get to a canonical schema for the contract, as it is quite likely that not all clients now and in the future will require the exact same view of the model.
Thus be it a web client, service client or a desktop client, if you think of the Model in MVC as the ViewModel, this allows you to abstract presentation layer things away from Service layer things, and you get closer to a canonical schema.
So an example View >> Controller >> ViewModel(Model) >> Data Contract >> Service
Examples of how to build a service stack like this can be found here:
SOA Design Pattern
The decision of whether to go with a REST architecture or a full WS-* SOAP is a separate concern and should not affect your choice of MVC as a presentation pattern.
There may of course be other constraints that preclude the use of one or the other.
Choosing a presentation pattern for a new or enterprise web development on the Microsoft platform is a daunting task, in my opinion there are only three; View Model, Model-View-Presenter (MVP) or ASP.NET MVC (a Model2 derivative).
You can read the full article here ASP.NET MVC Patterns
This depends on what you mean by SOA. If you are referring to WS-* standards, I would not recommend MVC, as you will need to write a lot of plumbing to get it to work.
If you are looking for something like a REST service, then the MVC pattern actually works quite well. The request is the HTTP location of the resource, which gets passed to the controller, which loads the data via the model, and then passes it to the view which returns it in whatever form is needed (JSON, XML, Binary, etc). Or, you can often return the result directly, depending on what framework you use.
Erick
MVVM is a Microsoft design pattern that existed before ASP.Net MVC. Can anyone through light on differences between MVVM and the new MVC pattern?.
Can anyone throw light on differences between MVVM and the new MVC pattern?.
Yes: When using ASP.NET MVC the MVC pattern uses the controller to render the model directly into the view. This is perfectly acceptable for trivial projects with a small number of objects. Where this can become a problem is that the concerns of the UI layer can bleed through to the underlying (domain) model.
When using MVVM then you are adding an abstraction between the Model and the View, which is of course the ViewModel. This allows the author to project into the view an object that is most readily consumed by the view. The ViewModel can contain things which would be out of place in the (domain) Model. The cost associated here is that you need to have mapping logic which transposes the data from the model to the View Model. Tools like AutoMapper can assist with this chore.
A simple example of this might be the Model doesn't require certain fields as required, but a particular View does. Rather than baking this logic into the user interface, if it is attached to the ViewModel, then other UI's can consume the same VM without having to duplicate logic that was baked into the first user interface.
MVC and MVVM are actually quite different. There seems to be a fair bit of misunderstanding of MVVM when talked about with ASP MVC. The practice of making 'View Models' in MVC, which are specific classes to feed views, while good practice is not true to the spirit of MVVM, and in fact is just a cleaner version of MVC.
MVVM is more suited to the desktop using WPF or similar, or purely in the browser using a JavaScript framework such as knockout.js. The pattern is quite different to MVC and involves views being 'subscribed' to the model.
I would venture to suggest that MVVM is Microsoft's design pattern and ASP.NET MVC, which is farily recent, is a specific implementation by Microsoft (that doesn't necessarily adhere to either MVC or MVVM but is similar). And as suggested by Reed, MVC has been around since the 70's.
Both MVC & MVVM are architectural patterns. MVC has its roots way back to Smalltalk. ASP.NET MVC is Microsoft's implementation of the MVC pattern using ASP.NET framework.
Both the patterns deal with separation of concerns. MVC is more to do with the interaction of various commonly used layers in an application like Model (data layer), View (presentation layer) and Controller (business logic layer).
With advanced databinding capabilities of WPF and Silverlight, MVVM was more suited and publicised as the next big thing. Martin Fowler generalized these patterns as presentation patterns in his Enterprise Application Architecture book.
One advantage I see in using a ViewModel is that it allows you to test the application code better using unit tests. Because of this reason I find MVVM or at least the ViewModel bit of it being used quite often in ASP.NET MVC applications as well.
I've been using ASP.net MVC for about two years now and I'm still learning the best way to structure an application.
I wanted to throw out these ideas that I've gathered and see if they are "acceptable" ways in the community to design MVC applications.
Here is my basic layout:
DataAccess Project - Contains all repository classes, LINQ-to-SQL data contexts, Filters, and custom business objects for non-MS SQL db repositories (that LINQ-to-SQL doesn't create). The repositories typically only have basic CRUD for the object they're managing.
Service Project - Contains service classes that perform business logic. They take orders from the Controllers and tell the repositories what to do.
UI Project - Contains view models and some wrappers around things like the ConfigurationManager (for unit testing).
Main MVC Project - Contains controllers and views, along with javascript and css.
Does this seem like a good way to structure ASP.NET MVC 2 applications? Any other ideas or suggestions?
Are view models used for all output to views and input from views?
I'm leaning down the path of making view models for each business object that needs to display data in the view and making them basic classes with a bunch of properties that are all strings. This makes dealing with the views pretty easy. The service layer then needs to manage mapping properties from the view model to the business object. This is a source of some of my confusion because most of the examples I've seen on MVC/MVC2 do not use a view model unless you need something like a combo box.
If you use MVC 2's new model validation, would you then validate the viewmodel object and not have to worry about putting the validation attributes on the business objects?
How do you unit test this type of validation or should I not unit test that validation messages are returned?
Thanks!
Interesting.
One thing I do differently is that I split off my DataAccess project from my Domain project. The domain project still contains all the interfaces for my repositories but my DataAccess project contains all the concrete implementations of them.
You don't want stuff like DataContext leaking into your domain project. Following the onion architecture your domain shouldn't have any dependencies on external infrastructure... I would consider DataAccess to have that because it's directly tied to a database.
Splitting them off means that my domain doesn't have a dependency on any ORM or database, so I can swap them out easily if need be.
Cheers,
Charles
Ps. What does your project dependency look like? I've been wondering where to put my ViewModels. Maybe a separate UI project is a good idea, but I'm not entirely sure how that would work. How do they flow through the different project tiers of your application?