Looking at examples and tutorials for some MVC libraries for web development on the Internet, I found that many of them construct HTML directly in the code of Model class and then Controller just sends it to the View which just displays it. While this makes Controller and View very simple and clean, I feel it is a wrong approach. IMHO, Model should just retrieve data, without having any representation logic in it. Controller should pass this data to the View, and View would contain the code that iterates through it and generates final HTML.
Is my thinking correct, or am I missing some important point here?
Presentation logic is shared between the view (most of it) and controller. The model should not concern itself with presentation logic.
If it does, you don't have separation of concerns. This isn't inherently a bad thing, but you miss the advantages of having presentation and business logic separated. So no, it's not a good idea.
This being said, there are elements of presentation logic that may get to the model. Think of a cms. Idealy you would have all the data marked up, let's say xml, on which you would apply a template to deliver it. But the data, and the template are kept in the model. So what is presentation, and what is business here?
There are gray areas, but most of the times is easy to separate presentation and business logic.
Your thinking is absolutely correct. If you want a clean separations of concerns it is best to have the View generate HTML from Model. In some cases html helpers could be used.
Is fetching HTML directly from Model (MVC) a good idea?
My gut instinct would say no. Breaks the concept of separation of concerns.
Related
I am confused about how model and view can interact
I was making a simple to do app with mvc pattern and I saw an article which said you shouldn't pass the model values directly to the view, which made the project more complex than I thought (I am relatively new to programming and this is the first time I am trying out a design pattern).
But then later on I talked to someone who said that that is not true and you can send the model data directly to view, he didn't even use classes or some kind of grouping to separate the function he just put them in separate files.
I was wondering if there is a guideline that I couldn't find or we can do whatever we want as long as they are kind of separated. I would love an article or a guide to read up on as well.
Since, I am not 100% sure the context in which you are trying to apply the MVC pattern, a good generic explanation of MVC can be found in GoF's 1995 book, Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object Oriented Software.
In the book, they state the following.
The Model is the application object, the View is its screen
presentation, and the Controller defines the way the user interface
reacts to user input.
A more robust explanation can be found from Martin Fowler where he also
makes the case for a variation of Model View Controller that uses a Presentation Model.
If you are referring to Spring MVC then there is some magic that blurs the lines a bit. But in general, you have a controller that represents some screen or an encapsulated piece of functionality that the user (web requests) interact with. The controller serves up responses that are derived from the domain, usually via a Spring Service (i.e. #Service). The domain (Model) doesn't know anything about the View and the View may or may not know anything about the domain.
Given that, the View should be derived from the Model. But that's not always the case since sometimes how we present things to a screen is not the best logical way to model things in our domain - not to mention, the domain should be presentation agnostic. This leads into Fowler's argument for a Presentation Model, which is a model that belongs to the Presentation.
I call this a Presentation Model because it's a model that is really
designed for and thus part of the presentation layer.
Microsoft took that idea and ran with it in a variant of MVC called MVVM (Model View ViewModel).
You can read more about that in Microsoft's documentation on ASP.Net Core.
So, back to your original question of "Should you pass the model directly to the view?" If you are using MVC then the controller is what provides the interaction. But if you're really asking, "Can you bind your view directly to the model?" If your model has all the stuff you need organized how your view needs it, then sure. And if it's simple enough, maybe that's the way to go. Otherwise, you could go with something like a Presentation Model or MVVM.
While working with Unity, I realized that separating Model and View would make my code more readable and straightforward. Constructing the whole model, all I had to do is just create some UI and bind it to Model.
But I still don't understand what 'Controller' is, and why does it exist. I don't think I had trouble when I directly bound View to Model, not through Controller.
So the question is if we can bind View to Model directly, why do we need Controller? What's the benefit of having Controller between Model and View?
At the highest level the Controller is the link between the View (displaying the UI/UX) and the Model (creating and managing your database and its tables).
True, it is possible to write code without any Controller usage but your Views will quickly get very cluttered and each file will be full of logic that is much more nicely stored somewhere else hint hint.
The Controller (and Model and some other places such as helpers) is thus the perfect place to sort out all the back-end code so that all you need to do is send a single field or object to your View to display.
An example is somewhat painful because by its nature the Controller is where you go to sort out your code as things get more complicated but this is a great article to get you on the right track! HTH
https://www.toptal.com/unity-unity3d/unity-with-mvc-how-to-level-up-your-game-development
I don't have years of experience, but in my understanding controllers provide a bridge across view and models. While view contain the pretty part and models contain useful parts the controller do the calls of functions passing values from database to view or inputs to model. That provide a way to avoid lots of injection like class A calling class B, calling class C, etc.
You can put rule business in controllers or in view, but thats not the expected in MVC architecture. The first important thing (for me) in software programming is readability, whats MVC provide.
if you've interest, search for other architectures like MVVM, to compare then.
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.
I was originally going to make this a longer question, but I feel like the shorter I make it, the better you'll understand what I mean.
The MVC architectural pattern has 3 dependencies. The View depends on the model. The Controller depends on the View and Model. The Model is independent.
The Layers architectural pattern defines N - 1 dependencies, where N is the number of Layers.
Given three Layers: Model, View, and Controller, there are only 2 dependencies, as opposed to 3 with traditional MVC. The structure looks like this:
View ---> Controller ---> Model
[View depends on Controller, Controller depends on Model]
It seems to me that this style accomplishes the same goals and produces looser coupling. Why isn't this style more common? Does it truly accomplish the same goals?
Edit: Not ASP.NET MVC, just the pattern.
With regard to griegs's post:
As far as mocking, Layers still allows you to use the Command Processor pattern to simulate button clicks, as well as any other range of events.
UI changes are still very easy, perhaps even easier. In MVC, the Controller and View tend to mesh together. Layers creates a strict separation. Both Layers are black boxes, free to vary independently in implementation.
The Controller has 0 dependencies on the View. The View can be written, and time can still be saved with loose coupling.
Because you decouple the interface from the controller making changes easier.
Also consider the scenario where you need to get started on a project but the artwork won't be ready for weeks or months. Do you wait or do you write all the code required for the pages and simply then wire up the view to the controller.
At least that's what we did and we saved months.
Also it made UI changes easier to cope with because there wasn't any code in our aspx pages that did anything.
Our tests were also better as we could mock up anything including button clicks etc.
And if you're talking about the asp.net-mvc framework, there is no code in the aspx files and no viewstate etc.
In proper MVC the controller doesn't depend on the view afaik. Or maybe I'm not understanding it correctly.
The model defines the data.
The view defines what the output looks like.
And the controller is a translator from a model-understood grammar to view-understood grammar.
So essentially the controller is independent. The view is independent. And the model is independent.
Yes? No?
I'll be bold, and try to explain why your method didn't catch on.
The MVC pattern basically requires the view and model layers to agree on an API.
Since one serves the other and there are no dependencies inside the code it leaves the controller to behave generically, all it needs to do is take a certain structure in the view layer and call the matching API on the model layer.
You'll note that agreeing on an API between the view and model isn't really such a big deal it has to happen anyway. And what you get is good separation between back-end front-end development.
In your proposed solution a lot of development is required on the controller side. The controller will be required to understand all the elements in the view and to map them to the specific calls required on the model layer.
Since the controller is a single access point connecting many views to many models this can quickly get out of hand and end up being an incomprehensible controller module.
Look at some Struts2 examples to see what I mean...
I think I'm understanding your point:
Yes you can make the View only depend on the Controller only by making the Controller transform (using PHP as an example) the Model objects to non-Model objects like simple arrays.
As we already know, performing this transformation can be more effort than it's worth if the decoupling isn't actually needed. If the View uses the Model objects then it has this dependency. However, this can be relieved a bit by having the View depend solely on the Controller for its required input, which can be Model objects.
The Symfony PHP framework promotes this style of skinny controller shuffling between Model and View. You can still directly call upon the Model layer to retrieve objects within the View layer but it's strongly urged against for the coupling issues you bring up. Within the View you can call include_component() which actually goes back up to the Controller if you need to query the Model.
I haven't gotten back to this in a long time, mostly because I was still thinking. I was unsatisfied with the answers I received, they didn't really answer my question.
A professor, recently, did steer me in the right direction. Essentially, he told me this: Layers which separate Model, View, and Controller is MVC. In the vanilla MVC architectural pattern, the dependency between the View to the Model is often not used, and you effectively end up with Layers. The idea is the same, the naming is just poor.
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
I'd like to add some more things. First of all for my point of view is we use the model as container for the information we want to pass and show on the view. Usually the action method into the controller ends with return view("viewName",model).The view itself probabily will change its layour against the model :
on the view :
if(model.something==true) {
%>
somethign to show
<%
}
At this poinf the definition of model is hard to find.
I can say (especially on enterprise conext) the are two "model"
one is the domain model/entity model or how you want to call it that wraps the data coming from the lower layers (database,etc) and the view-model who contain the information we wants to show plus any other information we need to hide/show portion of interface
The controller orchestrate the the views and is indipendent from the view but a bit dipendent from the model:
into the controller
pulic actionResult Index(){
....
if(model.BoolProperty==true){
return ("firstView);
}
else
{
return ("secondView");
}
}
I hope it makes sense
In my opinion ,you'd better try it in your programme , you can use ruby on rails ,or codeigniter( for php ),these great framework may be helpful to your understanding the MVC.
Before rendering into a view model should be formatted:
multilingual data localized;
date, time values formatted;
numbers formatted.
Who performs all this formatting - Controller or View?
Am I right that all the formatting is performed by the Controller which creates so called ViewModel containing only formatted values and sends this ViewModel to the View?
Thanks in advance!
Eric Petroelje is right, but I would build helper a class(es) to get localised content/dates etc, because localisation isn't always in the views, e.g. sending emails with localised content. I would have something like LocalisationHelper.GetString("MyKey"), or LocalisationHelper.GetDate(Date.Now), where the LocalisationHelper knows the users current locale (maybe from Session).
Then use this directly in the views where possible:
<%= Html.Encode(LocalisationHelper.GetDate(Date.Now)) %>
Design Patterns 101.
Model is for storing data (usually database-backed).
View is for presenting the data (not manipulating it).
Controller is for manipulating the model and passing that to the view (choosing the right locale for instance would go here).
MVC doesn't necessarily mean you have 3 distinct classes, but rather 3 components or layers. These are abstract and don't necessarily have to be tied to one physical class. Inside your Controller layer, that can consist of any number of helper classes or whatever.
I agree with part of what cartoonfox is saying, everything is intertwined. For instance, if you develop a view for a shopping cart, but the model is containing birthday information, then it isn't going to work. It is simply a design pattern to help remove duplication of effort. When you have fewer variables and less noise, it is much easier to focus on what needs to be done and understand it very well.
I had a discussion with our team about using annotations to render forms on a web page. These annotations were placed in the model or entity class. You will often work directly with entity classes, so it eliminates quite a bit of overhead and duplication of effort if you put your annotations here. Because your annotations are placed directly on the model class, you cannot end up with a view for birthday information, it just isn't possible. In addition, by following patterns, you strip out the junk that doesn't add value to the end result. You simply write the business logic and close to nothing else.
Although the annotations were in the same class as the model layer, the presentation or view layer consisted of the annotations and the helper classes. It doesn't need to necessarily be distinct classes or boundaries.
Another example would be. I've worked on some PHP web "applications" in the past. I use applications because they were a monolithic block of code, more or less a single main method with all the logic in there (which is hardly a functional application).
If you don't abstract code into functions and simply use a single method, you will end up with a lot of duplication of effort. If you tried to understand that monolithic code block, you would be in for a heap of trouble (as was I, it was hard to learn what was going on, then I would find a similar block of code somewhere else and be dumbfounded why a few things were tweaked the way they were).
It can be done any way you want, but design patterns such as MVC help you simplify what you write in order to get it to work as well as more easily wrap your head around the solution. Another popular design pattern or approach is divide and conquer.
To answer your original questions:
In Java, localized data would be done transparently by the application. For instance, if you wanted US English locale support, you would create a properties file:
messages_en-US.properties
and then place all your US English content in there. Depending on how much content this may be, you might want to use a different approach.
For my application I have whole pages in a different language so what I do is this. My controller determines the client's locale or a best match. Then it chooses which view to display and passes the model (data) to the view.
If you need dynamic formatting for your date/times, then your controller is responsible for determining which one will be used. Then, your view is responsible for using that converter to format the value.
I'm using JBoss Seam so the MVC design pattern is still used, but more abstractly. I don't have actual 'controllers', but an interceptor which is responsible for handling a specific piece of functionality (determining the client's locale, then another for their date/time preference). My controllers that would be the equivalent of a Spring Controller are action components responsible for handling page actions.
Walter
The view is responsible for this not the controller.
To explain I need to elaborate a bit about what the "view" is:
In both web-based and traditional GUI MVC patterns, the View is responsible for the external representation of whatever parts of the model that are shown. If that means "formatting" data from the model then so be it.
The controller shouldn't format the data - because the controller is responsible for doing things to the model based on events/commands coming in from the outside world. The controller doesn't have anything to do with rendering the output.
Example:
I want to display a shopping cart with several order lines:
Adding things to the cart causes the controller to change what's in the cart model.
Changing my locale causes the controller to change a setting in the user model to indicate preferred locale.
Whenever the cart is displayed, the view has to ask the model for the order lines and decide how to display that - maybe doing locale-sensitive work.
The same customer could ask to see the shopping cart in multiple different currencies. That just means changing what it looks like in the view. It's still the same shopping cart for the same customer with the same things in it.
If this is a web-app made from web template pages, you might embed code to pull in localized messages e.g. <%= message_renderer.text(:insufficient_funds) %>. In this case the "message_renderer" and the template file are both part of the view.
Views aren't necessarily just web-based templates. In some Java-based frameworks for example, we put "view objects" into a velocity template. Those view objects are linked back to objects in the model, but they also perform on-demand rendering and formatting behaviour. Those are part of the view although they're not just a template.
It's a bit confusing with frameworks like ruby on rails and groovy on grails where they call the template the "view" - when a view is really more than just a template. Traditionally (in Smalltalk MVC and in Java's Swing) views are just code that can perform formatting, rendering and any other display-related behaviour.
All that stuff seems like presentation layer logic, so personally I think it should go in the view.
ETA:
I wouldn't advocate for having the view call service layer objects in the general sense, but for localization I think it makes sense.
For example, lets say you have lots of static text on your pages that you have tokenized and stored in a database in various localized forms. I don't think it would make sense for the controller to have to lookup and put all those text tokens in the model. Even though a text token lookup is technically a "service layer" operation, I still think it makes sense for the view to call that service directly via some utility class rather than having the controller do it.