I have two classes that each need an instance of each other to function. Ordinarily if an object needs another object to run, I like to pass it in the constructor. But I can't do that in this case, because one object has to be instantiated before the other, and so therefore the second object does not exist to be passed to the first object's constructor.
I can resolve this by passing the first object to the second object's constructor, then calling a setter on the first object to pass the second object to it, but that seems a little clunky, and I'm wondering if there's a better way:
backend = new Backend();
panel = new Panel(backend);
backend.setPanel();
I've never put any study into MVC; I suppose I'm dealing with a model here (the Backend), and a view or a controller (the Panel). Any insights here I can gain from MVC?
It's time to take a look at MVC. :-) When you have a model-view-controller situation, the consensus is that the model shouldn't be aware of the view-controller (MVC often plays out as M-VC), but the view is invariably aware of the model.
If the model needs to tell the view something, it does so by notifying its listeners, of which it may have multiples. Your view should be one of them.
In a circular construction scenario I'd use a factory class/factory method. I would normally make the construction logic private to the factory (using friend construct, package level protection or similar), to en sure that no-one could construct instances without using the factory.
The use of setter/constructor is really a part of the contract between the two classes and the factory, so I'd just use whichever's convenient.
As has been pointed out, you really should try to find a non-circular solution.
First of all, contrary to what others has said here, there's no inherent problem with circular references. For example, an Order object would be expected to have a reference to the Customer object of the person who placed the Order. Similarly, it would be natural for the Customer object to have a list of Orders he has placed.
In a refernce-based language (like Java or C#) there's no problem, at all. In a value-based language (like C++), you have to take care in designing them.
That said, you design of:
backend = new Backend();
panel = new Panel(backend);
backend.setPanel(panel);
It pretty much the only way to do it.
It's better to avoid circular references. I would personally try to rethink my objects.
panel = new Panel(backend);
You do this in this routine something like
Public Sub Panel(ByVal BackEnd as BackEnd)
Me.MyBackEnd = BackEnd
BackEnd.MyPanel = Me
End Sub
You don't need BackEnd.SetPanel
It is better to use Proxies. A proxy links one object to another through raising a Event. The parent hands the child a proxy. When the child needs the parent it calls a GetRef method on the proxy. The proxy then raises a event which the parent uses to return itself to the proxy which then hands it to the child.
The use of the Event/Delegate mechanism avoids any circular reference problems.
So you have (assuming that the backend is the 'parent' here)
Public Sub Panel(ByVal BackEnd as BackEnd)
Me.MyBackEnd = BackEnd.Proxy
BackEnd.MyPanel = Me
End Sub
Public Property MyBackEnd() as BackEnd
Set (ByVal Value as BackEnd)
priBackEndProxy = BackEnd.Proxy
End Set
Get
Return priBackEndProxy.GetRef
End Get
End Property
Here is a fuller discussion on the problem of circular references. Although it is focused on fixing it in Visual Basic 6.0.
Dynamic Memory Allocation
Also another solution is aggregating Panel and BackEnd into another object. This is common if both elements are UI Controls and need to behave in a coordinated manner.
Finally as far as MVC goes I recommend using a a Model View Presenter approach instead.
Basically you have your Form Implement a IPanelForm interface. It registers itself with a class called Panel which does all the UI logic. BackEnd should have events that Panel can hook into for when the model changes. Panel handles the event and updates the form through the IPanelForm interface.
User clicks a button
The form passes to Panel that the user clicked a button
Panel handles the button and retrieves the data from the backend
Panel formats the data.
Panel uses IPanelForm Interface to show the data on the Form.
I've been delaying implementing the lessons learned here, giving me plenty of time to think about the exact right way to do it. As other people said, having a clear separation where the backend objects have listeners for when their properties change is definitely the way to go. Not only will it resolve the specific issue I was asking about in this question, it is going to make a lot of other bad design smells in this code look better. There are actually a lot of different Backend classes (going by the generic class names I used in my example), each with their own corresponding Panel class. And there's even a couple of places where some things can be moved around to separate other pairs of classes into Backend/Panel pairs following the same pattern and reducing a lot of passing junk around as parameters.
The rest of this answer is going to get language specific, as I am using Java.
I've not worried a whole lot about "JavaBeans," but I have found that following basic JavaBean conventions has been very helpful for me in the past: basically, using standard getters and setters for properties. Turns out there's a JavaBean convention I was unaware of which is really going to help here: bound properties. Bound properties are properties available through standard getters and setters which fire PropertyChangeEvents when they change. [I don't know for sure, but the JavaBeans standard may specify that all properties are supposed to be "bound properties." Not relevant to me, at this point. Be aware also that "standard" getters and setters can be very non-standard through the use of BeanInfo classes to define a JavaBean's exact interface, but I never use that, either.] (The main other JavaBean convention that I choose to follow or not as appropriate in each situation is a no-argument constructor; I'm already following it in this project because each of these Backend objects has to be serializable.)
I've found this blog entry, which was very helpful in cluing me into the bound properties/PropertyChangeEvents issue and helping me construct a plan for how I'm going to rework this code.
Right now all of my backend objects inherit from a common class called Model, which provides a couple of things every backend in this system needs including serialization support. I'm going to create an additional class JavaBean as a superclass of Model which will provide the PropertyChangeEvent support that I need, inherited by every Model. I'll update the setters in each Model to fire a PropertyChangeEvent when called. I may also have JavaBean inherited by a couple of classes which aren't technically Models in the same sense as these but which could also benefit from having other classes registered as listeners for them. The JavaBean class may not fully implement the JavaBean spec; as I've said, there are several details I don't care about. But it's good enough for this project. It sounds like I could get all this by inheriting from java.awt.Component, but these aren't components in any sense that I can justify, so I don't want to do that. (I also don't know what overhead it might entail.)
Once every Model is a JavaBean, complete with PropertyChangeEvent support, I'll do a lot of code cleanup: Models that are currently keeping references to Panels will be updated and the Panels will register themselves as listeners. So much cleaner! The Model won't have to know (and shouldn't have known in the first place) what methods the Panel should call on itself when the property updates.
Related
Should methods that manipulate the Model class members be implemented in the Model or in the Controller? Does it depend on how "heavy" this manipulation is ?
By "manipulation" I mean:
get a class member
make a long calculation based upon this class member
return another value which relates to this class
For example, a Board class which hold a cell matrix member.
Now I want to implement a method which returns all the surrounding cells according to specific cell location.
Is the model or view responsible to for implementing the above ?
If this question belongs to another Stack Exchange QA site I will welcome the recommendation to move my post to that site.
Keep your controllers thin, don't let them do much, this aligns with the Single Responsibility Principle in SOLID for Object Oriented Design. If you have fat controllers, they become hard to test and maintain.
As for the models, I used to have dumb models before that did nothing but to map to database tables and that was inspired by most of the sample applications that you see on the web, but now I don't do that.
I (try to) follow the principles from Domain Driven Design, where models (entities in DDD terms) are at the center of the application, they are expected to encapsulate behaviour related to the entity, they are smart models (so yes, the logic related to an object will live with it in that case). DDD is a much bigger topic and it is not related directly to MVC, but the principles behind it helps you better design your applications, there is a lot of materials and sample apps available if you google DDD.
Additionally, Ruby On Rails community - which seems to inspire most of MVC frameworks - also seems to have a hype around having Fat Models and Skinny Controllers.
On top of that, you can add View Models to your mix which I find helpful. In this case, you can have a ViewModel to represent a dumb subset of your model(s) just to use for generating the view, it makes your life easier and further separate your Views from your Models so that they don't affect your design decisions unnecessarily.
What you call "model" is are actually domain objects. The actual model in MVC is just a layer, not concrete thing.
In your particular example, the Board should have a method that returns this list. I assume, that you are actually acquiring it because you then need to do further interaction with those cells.
This is where the services within the model layer comes in to play. If you use them, they are the outer part of model layer and contain the application logic - interaction between different domain objects and the interaction between the persistence (usually either data mappers or units of work) and domain objects.
Let's say you are making a game, and you and player performs and AoE attack. Controller takes a hold of service, which is responsible for this functionality and sends a command: this player aimed AoE in this direction, perform it.
Service instantiates Board and asks for surrounding cells of the target location. Then it performs "damage" on every cell in the collection that it acquired. After the logic is done, it tell the Unit of Work instance to commit all the changes, that happened on the Board.
Controller does not care about the details of what service does. And it should not receive any feedback. When execution gets to the view, it request from model layer the latest changes and modifies the UI. As the added benefit - services let you stop the business logic from leaking in the presentation layer (mostly made up from views an controllers).
The domain object should contain only methods, that deal with their state.
I think this has little to do with MVC, and a lot more to do with regular software engineering.
I personally wouldn't hesitate to stick trivial calculations in a model, but would be extremely wary of fat models.
Now, the fact that MVC stands for Model View Controller doesn't necessarily mean that everything should be either a view, a model or a controller. If you feel the need to move responsibilities to a separate class that doesn't really qualify as an M, a V or a C, I don't see why you shouldn't do it.
The way you implement it is up to you. You could either use this separate class as a "top level" (for lack of a better term) object, or make a method of the model delegate to it, so as to hide the fact that you're using it. I would probably go for the latter.
Everything is debatable, though. Everybody and their sister seem to have a different opinion on how to do MVC right.
Me, I just consider it a guideline. Sure, it's a great idea because it leads you to a better separation of concern, but in the end—as it always happens—there's no one-size-fits-all way to apply it, and you should not be overly constrained by it, to the point where everything has to be either a view, a model or a controller.
As per best practice we should use properties for Calculated fields with get access only. example public double TotalCost {
get
{
return this.Role.Cost * TotalHour;
}
}
I have this idea of generating an array of user-links that will depend on user-roles.
The user can be a student or an admin.
What I have in mind is use a foreach loop to generate a list of links that is only available for certain users.
My problem is, I created a helper class called Navigation, but I am so certain that I MUST NOT hard-code the links in there, instead I want that helper class to just read an object sent from somewhere, and then will return the desired navigation array to a page.
Follow up questions, where do you think should i keep the links that will only be available for students, for admins. Should i just keep them in a text-file?
or if it is possible to create a controller that passes an array of links, for example
a method in nav_controller class -> studentLinks(){} that will send an array of links to the helper class, the the helper class will then send it to the view..
Sorry if I'm quite crazy at explaining. Do you have any related resources?
From your description it seems that you are building some education-related system. It would make sense to create implementation in such way, that you can later expand the project. Seems reasonable to expect addition of "lectors" as a role later.
Then again .. I am not sure how extensive your knowledge about MVC design pattern is.
That said, in this situation I would consider two ways to solve this:
View requests current user's status from model layer and, based on the response, requests additional data. Then view uses either admin or user templates and creates the response.
You can either hardcode the specific navigation items in the templates, from which you build the response, or the lit of available navigation items can be a part of the additional information that you requested from model layer.
The downside for this method is, that every time you need, when you need to add another group, you will have to rewrite some (if not all) view classes.
Wrap the structures from model layer in a containment object (the basis of implementation available in this post), which would let you restrict, what data is returned.
When using this approach, the views aways request all the available information from model layer, but some of it will return null, in which case the template would not be applied. To implement this, the list of available navigation items would have to be provided by model layer.
P.S. As you might have noticed from this description, view is not a template and model is not a class.
It really depends on what you're already using and the scale of your project. If you're using a db - stick it there. If you're using xml/json/yaml/whatever - store it in a file with corresponding format. If you have neither - hardcode it. What I mean - avoid using multiple technologies to store data. Also, if the links won't be updated frequently and the users won't be able to customize them I'd hardcode them. There's no point in creating something very complex for the sake of dynamics if the app will be mostly static.
Note that this question doesn't quite fit in stackoverflow. programmers.stackexchange.com would probably be a better fit
Could anyone give an example of why it would be advantageous to use MVC instead of a simpler Model and a View only.
Note: whether it's called MVC or MVP (Model-View-Presenter), I'm talking about the one where the View receives input, then the Controller will respond to the input event by interpreting the input into some action to be done by the Model. When the model changes, the View will update itself by responding to events from the model.
What is disadvantageous of simply letting the Model respond to events in the View and vice versa?
In MVC, if I changed the model in a way that affects the controller then I'll have to do changes in the controller. In Model-View, if I change the Model, I'll have to update the view.
So, it seems like we are introducing complexity by adding the "controller" part?
In MVC, the Model is blind to its environment, the view can be too - passing off (blindly) its events to the controller, which knows more about the view and model. So when all is said and done, the controller is the 'non-reusable' disposable part of the system, since it is the most context aware component.
if I changed the model in a way that affects the controller...
The the model should expose simple CRUD methods in such a way that those using the methods do not have to know anything about the passed update object, nor what really happens inside the model.
This means that the view, IMO, has to do a bit of work by creating the passed record, since Controllers are supposed to be stateless and the view is more persistent. Controllers get triggered and 'kick-in' do their work with a passed object and do not have a state.
The passed data is created by some sort of generic convention.
Let me go even further. Suppose you have a view, a tablegrid, and a control whose enabled property is dependent on item is selected in the grid -- you COULD create a view that handles both those controls and this logic internally, and that would probably be the way to go in such a simplified example.
But the more atomic your views are, the more reusable they become, so you create a view for every, yes every, control. Now you are looking at a situation where views have to know about each other in order to register themselves for the right notification...
This is where the controller steps in, since we want to stick all these dependencies onto him, the long term disposable one. So the controller manages this type of view-to-view notification scheme.
Now your views are ignorant as they can be and independent, thus reusable.
You can code a view without having to know about the system, or the 'business logic' as they like to call it. You can code a model without having to know too much about your goals (though it does help to tweak the model to enable it to return the datasets you have in mind).... but controllers, they are last and you have to have the previous two firmed up before you can wire things together.
Here is another thing to think about -- just as the Model is supposed to abstract-away and provide a generic interface to the underlying implementation of the data it is managing (the client does not know if the data comes from a DB, a file, a program setting, etc) -- the view should also abstract away the control it is using.
So, ultimately this means a view should not (caveat below) have functions/properties that look like this:
public property BackgroundColor{get;set}
Nor
public function ScrollBy(x,y){}
But instead:
public SetProp(string name, object val){}
And
public DoCmd(string name, object val){}
This is a bit contrived, and remember I said ultimately... and you ask why is this a good idea?
With reusability in mind, consider that you may one day want to port things from WinForms to, say, Flex, or simple want to use a new-fangled control library that may not expose the same abilities.
I say 'port' here, but that is really not the goal, we are not concerned with porting THIS particular app, but having the underlying MVC elements generic enough to be carried across to a new flavor -- internally, leaving a consistent and ability-independent external interface intact.
If you didn't do this, then when your new flavor comes along, all your hard references to view properties in the (potentially reusable/refactorable/extendable) controllers have to be mucked with.
This is not to mean that such generic setters and cmds have to be the interface for all your views abilities, but rather they should handle 'edge case' properties as well as the normal props/cmds you can expose in the traditional hard-link way. Think of it as an 'extended properties' handler.
That way, (contrived again), suppose you are building on a framework where your buttons no longer have buttonIcon property. Thats cool because you had the foresight to create a button view interface where buttonIcon is an extended property, and inside the view your conditional code does a no-op now when it receives the set/get.
In summary, I am trying to say that the coding goals of MVC should be to give the Model and View generic interfaces to their underlying components, so when you are coding a Controller you don't have to think to hard about who you are controlling. And while the Controllers are being (seemingly unfairly) set up to be the sacrificial lamb in the long run of re-usability -- this does not mean ALL your controllers are destined for death.
They are hopefully small, since a lot of their 'thinking' has been shoved off into semi-intelligent Models and Views and other controllers (ex: Controller to Sort a Grid or Manipulate a TreeView) -- so being small they can be easily looked at and qualified for reuse in your next project -- or cloned and tweaked to become suitable.
It actually reduces complexity by separating the workflow logic from the domain logic. It also makes it easier to write unit tests and makes your application easier to maintain and extend.
Imagine if you wanted to add a new data type. With the approach above, you would probably duplicate a lot of the workflow logic in the new class as it would be likely to be tightly coupled to the domain logic.
The discipline involved in separating the workflow logic into the controller makes it more likely that you will have fewer dependencies between workflow and domain logic. Adding a new data type would then be more simple, you create the new domain object and see how much of the controller you can reuse, e.g. by inherited from a controller super class.
It would also make it easier to change frameworks in future - the model would probably not change too much and so would be more portable.
Having said that, you might want to look into MVVM depending on what you are using as your presentation layer: Benefits of MVVM over MVC
Advantages of MVC/P (I am talking about Supervising Controller here) over MV include:
You can handle complex data binding code in the controller, if required.
You can test that complex presentation logic without a UI testing framework.
You can also have a graphic designer make your views, and not see your code, and not mess up your code when they fix your views.
After writing a few lesser programs when learning Java the way I've designed the programs is with Model-View-Control. With using MVC I have a plethora of getter methods in the model for the view to use.
It feels that while I gain on using MVC, for every new value added I have to add two new methods in the model which quickly get all cluttered with getter & setters.
So I was thinking, maybe I should use the notifyObserver method that takes an argument. But wouldn't feel very smart to send every value by itself either so I figured, maybe if I send a kind of container with all the values, preferably only those that actually changed.
What this would accomplish would be that instead of having a whole lot of getter methods I could just have one method in the model which put all relevant values in the container.
Then in the view I would have a method called from the update which extracted the values from the container and assigning them to the correct fields.
I have two questions concerning this.
First: is this actually a viable way to do this. Would you recommend me doing something along these lines?
Secondly: if I do use this plan and I don't want to keep sending fields that didn't actually change. How would I handle that without having to have if statements to check if the value is not null for every single value?
I've more familiar with the MVP paradigm, but hopefully they're similar enough to comment. While getters (and setters) in and of themselves are not necessarily evil, they are sometimes a sign that your subsystems are too strongly coupled. One really great way to decouple this is to use an event bus: see Best practices for architecting GWT apps. This allows the view to just shoot off events for the controller to listen for whenever something important happens, and the view can listen for events whenever something changes in the model that corresponds to updating the view. Ideally you wouldn't even need to ever pass the model to the view, if you can break up any changes into incremental pieces and just tell the view to change this part and then this other part.
If you feel you have too many getters (and setters) in your model class, maybe you have too many fields altogether. Is it possible that there are several distinct classes hiding within your model? If you extract these into separate classes, it may make your model more manageable.
OTOH the associated container you are thinking about could also be viable - but then why duplicate all data? You could instead use the associated container directly in the model to store all properties you can think of. And you can also pass this around for observers to get updates (preferably wrapped into an unmodifiable container, of course) - although in this setup you wouldn't need to.
In general, Java is a verbose language which expects you to put all those getters and setters (and a lot more) in place. However, any decent IDE can generate those for you with a few keypresses. Note also that you need to write them only once, and you will read and call them many many more times. Verbose also means easily readable.
If you have too many getter it's ok. But you shouldn't need the setter. The view is supposed to only read/query the model.
The MVC pattern should promote something that is asymmetric: the control update the model by calling methods in the model that embed the logic and update the sate accordingly; this respects encapsulation. The view reads/queries the model via the getters. This goes a bit against information hiding, but that's how MVC works.
I wouldn't personally pass all information in the events. It sounds complicated to me: either you end up with something that is not statically typed (e.g. you pass hashmaps), or with a plethora of typed events. I would stick with something simple, and have (possibly many) getter in the model.
If I don't want to expose the state of my object, but I still need to display it (in HTML, XML or JSON let's say), how would I go about doing that in an MVC environment.
Does it make sense to have an export method which exports a dumbed down immutable object (a "data class" if you will).
What about adding in a render method which talks to an interface?
Are there any other approaches to this problem?
The render method comes the closest to not exposing state. Another method (well-known to Smarty users) is to feed the view non-object data structures to work with.
It's worth asking, though, what is the problem that these abstractions and/or the interface hiding they serve are solving? If you're going to be doing all this work, IMO you should make sure there's some work it's saving you.
The point of encapsulation is hiding implementation. There is "state" that other objects do need to know about -- sometimes the whole purpose of an object is telling such state.
For instance, it would be pretty useless to have a Defined Finite Automata object which doesn't have a getter for whether it's on a final state or not. But it's certainly useful to encapsulate how that information is stored internally.
Now, the goal of getters and setters is to provide an interface to properties of a state of an object, which might not have anything to do with how it is actually implemented. Granted, most of the time these properties are fields in the object, and the getters and setters just shallow shells. On the other hand, you have the freedom to change the internal implementation, because the getters and setters will ensure interface compatibility.
If, however, these properties are too related to the actual implementation and not so much with what the object is about, then you should consider removing such getters and setters.
Having said all that, if you need to display something to the user, then this is a property other objects need to know about. An object shouldn't be concerned with how to display itself, for many reasons. One of them is that it can't know how it should be rendered without knowing how it is used by the application, which would make IT know too much about the other objects.