I've done a fair amount of work on MVC on the web, and we're learning about it in my OOP class. I'm seeing some differences, and I can't tell whether that's because the Web's version of the MVC pattern is different than the traditional one, or whether I misunderstood it.
From my understanding, The model (your flat files, RDBMS', etc) is a generic data-housing object. The View (Browser, HTML, etc) is what the user interacts with, and the controller mediates between the users actions and the data. The controller is the most domain-specific part, and it manages the views, tells the model what it needs, and tells the views what to display.
In class, we have the Views matching what I just described, the Model contains a list of the views so that it can update them when the data changes, and the controller simply maps the user's actions to calls to the model and to specific objects (which may themselves, ask the model to update the views). What ends up happening is that most of the business logic is in the model, and it's tied very heavily to the simulation or application that is being written, while the Controller is reduced to a mapping tool between commands and methods.
What are your thoughts on this?
In a non-web interface the controller handles the inputs from things like the keyboard and mouse, choosing which views to render and what changes to make in the model based on those inputs. The view and model can be more closely related because the view can register callbacks directly with the model entities to be notified of changes and thus be updated based on changes to the model directly instead of being updated by the controller.
In the web world, views are necessarily more decoupled from the model. It must act through the controller actions because it has no direct access (after being rendered and delivered to the browser) to the model. The controller takes a larger role in this environment even though the only "input" it has to deal with are browser requests. In a sense, the coupling that used to occur with the view in non-web MVC is transferred to the controller acting on its behalf. Since there are no callbacks from the model to respond to (let's forget about "push" technologies for now), more business code is incorporated into the controller since it's the natural place to model business processes, though perhaps not validation.
In my understanding controllers in the web MVC pattern are just bridges between Models and Views, they simply grab the data from the Model and pass it on to the View. The Model and the View and independent and never talk to each other.
Related
While using a custom MVC framework I found that the view can actually access data in the model. That was a bit of a surprise because I always thought the V must go through the C. It was something like
//this is completely made up but not far off
serverside foreach(var v in Model.GetSomeList()) {
<div>#v.name</div>
}
Do many MVC frameworks in any programming language allow the view to access anything in the model? When do i choose what should go through the controller and what is ok to access from the view?
Usually that "Model" is really like viewmodel, not the business layer Model object, although it could be the POCO version of the business object. Basically, the view is bound to some poco without any business logic.
Information flow in classical MVC.
Data in MVC should not go from model through controller to view. That is violation of the original concept.
If you read the original definition of MVC design pattern you will notice that Views are meant to request the data from Model. And views know when to do it, because they are observing Model for changes.
Modern interpretations.
In the original concept you were meant to have small MVC triad for each element in the application. In modern interpretation (as per Martin Fowler), the model is not anymore any single object or class. Model is a layer, which contains several groups of objects. Each with a different set of responsibilities.
Also, with the rise of Web there was another problem. You cannot use classical MVC for websites. Theoretically now you could achieve it by keeping an open socket and pushing a notification to the browser every time you changed something in the model layer.
But in practice even a site with 100 concurrent users will start having problems. And you would not use MVC for making just a blog. Using such an approach for even minor social network would be impossible.
And that was not the only divergence from the original concept.
MVC-inspired patterns
Currently, along with classical MVC (which is not even all so classical anymore). There are three major MVC inspired patterns:
Model2 MVC
This is basically same classical MVC patter, but there is not observer relationship between model later and view(s). This pattern is meant to me more web-oriented. Each time you receive a user request, you know that something is gonna change in model layer. Therefore each user request cause view instance to request information from the model layer.
MVP
This pattern, instead replaces controller with a presenter. The presenter request data from model layer and passes it to current view. You can find patterns definition here. It is actually a lot more complex, and I, honestly, do not fully understand it.
In this case the View is passive and will not request any data from model layer.
MVVM
This pattern is closer to MVP hen to classical MVC. In this case the controller-like structure (which actually would be more then a monolith class) request data from model layer and then alters it in such a way as it is expected by the (passive) view.
This pattern is mostly aimed at situation where developer does not have full controller over views or/and model layer. For example, when you are developing some application where model layer is SAP. Or when you have to work with an existing frontend infrastructure.
FYI: what is called "MVVM" in ASP.NET MVC is actually a good Model2 implementation .. what they call "viewmodels" are actually view instances and "views" are just templates that are used by views.
This is common. If you look at the Wikipedia page for MVC, this is what it says for the view:
A view requests from the model the information that it needs to generate an output representation.
MVC is an architectural style, so some people change it as they see fit. From the design intentions of the architecture this particular question is certainly not frowned upon.
I've learned that you should set up the controller-class in a MVC-OOD as a use case, from top to bottom in only one method that run the MVC-classes.
Is it OK to use different methods in one controller to get more control and better overview?
Let's say you wanna run a controller that will display a login form (getting the html etc from the View). And the same controller will also display a log-out button IF the user is NOT logged in.
This could be done with a single method in the controller, but using two methods seems better. One method to call if you want the login form, and one to call if you want to log-out button.
(just an example)
So, what does the pros say. Should each controller contain one "use case" method only, or could it be several?
TL;DR -- you have misunderstood the MVC design pattern and are doing it wrong.
Controllers are not responsible for rendering the interface, nor for presentation logic. Controllers do not display anything. Instead, each controller's method deals with different user's request. It extracts the data from said request and passes it to model layer and the associated view.
Decisions about what and how to display are in purview of views. Views contain the presentation logic in MVC pattern. In the context of web applications, views create the response. They can compose a from from multiple templates or just send a single HTTP header.
Controllers can signal the associated view by passing some specific values of the request to that view, but most of the decisions in the view are based on information that the view requested from different services in the model layer.
A Controller's methods are based on what type of requests a user can send. For example in a authentication form it might be: GET /login and/or POST /login.
Its important to remember two things with MVC, firstly, its an Object-Oriented Architecture, and secondly, It should be used for separating concerns.
Separation of Concerns is related to Abstraction, It is to aid us in understanding the section of code at hand. The Model and View are both collections/domains of related objects. Each object is fully complete and relevant to its domain.
You will find objects with types such as Buttons, Images, Text Inputs etc inside your View, and you will find business related objects (User, Account, Profile etc) within your Model.
The collection of objects inside your Model don't tend to do much, They require logic to wire the objects together. (Or simply delegate simple single object requests to the correct object)
The Controller provides the interface into your Model, and contains the business logic related to the Model and the interactions between the Model objects. You will have a single Controller for your Model, and the Controller will have multiple methods which will align with your use-cases.
So I did some Google searching on the MVC pattern and I'm still not exactly sure what the "Model" part is. What exactly does it deal with? I'm rather new to programming so all the explanations I can find go right over my head. I'd really appreciate it if you could give me an explanation in simple terms.
Thanks
The simplest way I can describe it is to call it the "Data" part. If it has to deal with getting or saving data, it's in the model. If you have a web application, the model is usually where you interact with a database or a filesystem.
Model in MVC is a place where data presented by the UI is located. Therefore, it shouldn't be confused with Domain Model which serves as a skeleton that holds the business logic.
Certainly, for a small application that serves as a service for CRUD operations backed by a database these two models can be the same. In a real world application they should be cleanly separated.
Controller is the one who talks to the application services and the Domain Model. It receives updates back from application services updating the Model which is then rendered by the View.
View renders the state hold by the Model, interprets User's input and it redirects it to the Controller. Controller then decides if the Model is going to be updated immediately or first the information is forwarded to application services.
The Model can represent your "Domain Model" in smaller projects. The Domain Model consists of classes which represent the real-world entities of the problem you're dealing with.
In larger projects, the Domain Model should be separated out of the actual MVC application, and given it's own project/assembly. In these larger projects, reserve the "Model" (i.e. the "Models folder in the MVC project") for UI presentation objects (DTOs - Data Transfer Objects)
The model is respomnsible for managing the data in the application. This might include stuff like database queries and file IO.
the view is obviously the template, with controller being the business logic.
The model is used to represent the data you are working with. The controller controls the data flow and actions that can be taken with the data. The view(s) visualize the data and the actions that can be requested of the controller.
Simple example:
A car is a model, it has properties that represent a car (wheels, engine, etc).
The controller defines the actions that can be taken on the car: view, edit, create, or even actions like buy and sell.
The controller passes the data to a view which both displays the data and sometimes lets the user take action on that data. However, the requested action is actually handled by the controller.
Hey guys - here's a question on Zend Framework or better on MVC in general:
I am asking myself for a quiet a long time now, if it is a good idea to push business objects (User, Team, etc.) to my views or if it would be better just to push dump data containers such as arrays to the view for rendering.
When pushing business objects to my view I have a much tighter coupling between the views and my domain model, however, the view could easily do things like foreach($this->team->getUsers() as $user) { ... } which I personally find very handy.
Providing domain model data in dumb arrays to me looks more robust and flexbile but with the costs of that the view cannot operate on real objects and therefore cannot access related data using object's method.
How do you guys handle that?
Thanks much,
Michael
It's better to make your View access a Domain Model object in an object-oriented manner, instead of using the Controller to convert Model data into plain scalars and arrays.
This helps to keep the Controller from growing too fat. See the Anemic Domain Model anti-pattern. The Controller only needs to know what Model to instantiate, passes the request inputs to that Model, and then injects the Model into the View script and renders. Keep in mind that a Domain Model is not a data-access class.
You can also write View Helpers to encapsulate a generic rendering of a Domain Model object, so you can re-use it in multiple View scripts.
Your View should accesses the Domain Model only in a read-only manner. View scripts should not try to effect changes to the Domain Model.
You can also design your Domain Model to implement ArrayObject or other SPL type(s), as needed to make OO usage easy in the View script.
It's true, a large driving motivation of MVC and OO design in general is decoupling. We want to allow each layer to remain unchanged as the other layer(s) are modified. Only through their public APIs do the layers interact.
The ViewModel is one solution to abstract the Model so that the View doesn't need to change. The one I tend to use is Domain Model, which abstracts the details of table design, etc. and supplies an API that is more focused on the business rather than the data access. So if your underlying tables change, the View doesn't have to know about it.
I would expect that if there's a change to the Domain Model, for instance it needs to supply a new type of attribute, then it's likely that your View is changing anyway, to show that new attribute in the UI.
Which technique you choose to decouple one layer from the others depends on what types of changes you expect to be most frequent, and whether these changes will be truly independent changes, or if they will require changes to multiple layers anyway.
The "standard" approach would be to completely prepare the model in the controller (e.g. fetch all teams, including users) and then send that to the View for presentation, but you are not bound by that. The data structures can be whatever you want it to be: Array, ArrayObject or custom Classes - anything you deem appropriate.
I dont use Zend framework, so this is in repsonse to the general MVC Have a look at the ViewModel pattern.
http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/06/29/how-we-do-mvc-view-models.aspx
I'm comming from a .Net MVC point of view but I believe the concepts will the same.
I will do all my view rendering in the controller bascially like below
model only output dataset/objects (this should contain the most code)
controller assign view and add necessary HTML and make use of models
view only contains placeholder and other presentation stuff and maybe ajax call
So my team can work on each part without interrupting each other, this also add some information security to the project i.e no one can retrieve all the working code they only communicate by variables/object spec.
I've decided to make a big push towards MVC for all new sites I make. I have a question about whether or not you can have any processing on the model level.
The case that brought up this question is a video site. I have a Video class (model) and one of the things I need to do when a user views the video I need the view to be logged in the database. I'm not sure if I need to add a query in the controller or if I can add a addView method in the Video class.
The basic underlying question for me is what kind of methods am I limited to in the models? Can it be anything or does it have to be only accessor (a.k.a getValue/setValue) methods?
Ruby on Rails has the motto skinny controller, fat model. This doesn't apply to just Rails and should be practiced with any mvc framework.
I think your model is exactly the place to handle this. Now, your model is necessarily composed of just your entity classes. Your model, in my opinion, would include your entities as well as any business logic that you need to implement. Your controller should just be handling I/O for the view, invoking model methods to accomplish the actions invoked by the user via the user interface (view).
Here how I would do this. It should be valid in pretty much any language.
The View would initiate a method call to the controller's OnView() method, then display whatever the controller spits back to it (in a controlled way, of course... I'm thinking your view is going to contain a video player component, so you're going to get a video of some kind back from the controller)
In your controller, have a method OnView() that does 3 things: instantiate the Video object (i.e. uses your data layer to get a model object), call the updateViewCount() method on the Video object, and display the video (by returning the Video object to the View, presumably).
The Video model object contains data representing your video and any houskeeping stuff you need, which includes updateViewCount(). The justification for this is that a Video has a view count (aggregation). If "view count" needs to be a complex object instead of just an integer, so be it. Your data layer that creates Video objects from their primitive representation on disk (database?) will also be responsible for loading and creating the corresponding view count object as part of the creation of the Video.
So, that's my $0.02. You can see that I've created a 4th thing (the first three being Model, View, and Controller) that is the data layer. I don't like Model objects loading and saving themselves because then they have to know about your database. I don't like Controllers doing the loading and saving directly because it will result in duplicated code across Controllers. Thus, a separate data layer that should only be directly accessed by Controllers.
As a final note, here's how I look at views: everything the user does, and everything the user sees, should go through the view. If there's a button on the screen that says "play", it shouldn't directly call a controller method (in many languages, there's no danger of doing this, but some, such as PHP, could potentially allow this). Now, the view's "play" method would just turn around and call the appropriate method on the controller (which in the example is OnView), and do nothing else, but that layer is conceptually important even though it's functionally irrelevant. Likewise, in most situations I'd expect your view to play a video stream, so the data returned by the controller to the view would be a stream in the format the view wants, which might not necessarily be your exact Model object (and adding that extra layer of decoupling may be advisable even if you can use the Video object directly). This means that I might actually make my OnView method take a parameter indicating what video format I want to get back, or perhaps create separate view methods on the controller for each format, etc.
Long winded enough for ya? :D I anticipate a few flames from the Ruby developers, who seem to have a slightly different (though not incompatible) idea of MVC.
Since you can use whatever model code you want with MVC (not just limited to LINQ) the short answer is yes. What should be done in the model is perhaps a better question. To my taste, I would add a ViewCount property (which probably maps to a column in the Video table, unless you are tracking per user in which case it would be in the UserVideo table). Then from the controller you can increment the value of this property.
With MVC, people seem to be struggling with fitting four layers into three.
The MVC paradigm does not properly address the data storage. And that's the "fourth layer". The Model has the the processing; but since it also addresses the data, programmers put SQL in there, too. Wrong. Make a data abstraction layer which is the only place that should talk to back-end storage. MVC should be DMVC.
Keep in mind, there are many variations on MVC and no real "right way" to do things. Ultimately, how you design your classes comes down to personal preference. However, since you asked for design advice, here are my two cents:
Business logic belongs in the controller. Keep it out of the model and view.
Out of the many variations on the MVC pattern, the passive view style seems to be the easiest to test. In the passive view, your classes are designed as follows:
Your controller is "smart: it makes changes to the database, updates the model, and syncronizes the view with the model. Apart from a reference to the model and view, the controller should hold as little stateful information as possible.
The model is "stupid", meaning it only holds the state of the view and no additional business logic. Models should not hold a reference to either the view or controller.
The view is "stupid", meaning it only copies information from the model to the UI, and it invokes event handlers which are handled by the controller. The view should contain no additional business logic. Views should not hold a reference to the controller or model.
If you're an MVC purist, then it would not make sense for the model to update itself or the database since those responsibilities belong to the controller, so it would not be appropriate to create an addView method to your Video class.