We Keep Coding

How to do backend coding of HTML element in Visual studio?

Hi after creating a button in HTML in Visual studio, how can i do its backend c# coding? Normally while using webforms double click will open coding class but how to acheive this in Visual studio for HTML element?

I think you can use the MVC pattern. To be more familiar with, you can read this documentation https://www.asp.net/mvc.
Few words about MVC pattern:
Define MVC in layman’s terms
Remember you’re technically minded and close to the code. MVC to you
is as clear as day, but saying to the business ‘Model, View,
Contoller’ could give them the impression that you are suffering from
some form tourette syndrome. MVC won’t mean much to the business even
after you define them in relation to the code. To get the business to
understand why this is the answer and least of all what it is, can be
more of a task than expected in my experience. Even some fellow
developers have difficulty understanding this on occasion.
To get the listener to understand what MVC is and why it works what I
have tried in the pass is to apply MVC to a different industries where
the listeners have had more involvement. An example that has worked
for me in the past in a comparison to the property or even the
vehicles. Most people have had dealing’s with builders, carpenters,
plumbers, electricians or have watched the flood of property shows on
the TV. This experience is a good platform to use and to explain why
separation such as MVC works. I know you’re probably thinking that
won’t work as it’s not the same as in software, but remember you’re
not trying to train the business to become developers or have an in
depth understanding of MVC, simply explaining to them that separation
in production is required and that’s what an MVC structure offers.
To give an example of how you could describe this I have very briefly
explained how separation works in property. Keep in mind this is
focused on using the system not developing which could be a completely
different angle of explanation.
View
The view in MVC is the presentation layer. This is what the end user
of a product will see and interact with. A system can have multiple
views of all different types ranging from command line output to
rendered HTML. The view doesn’t consist of business logic in most
clear designs. The interface is fit for purpose and is the area of
interaction. Therefore you could simply output HTML for consumers to
interact with or output SOAP/XML for businesses to interact with. Both
use the same business logic behind the system otherwise known as the
models and controllers.
In the world of property you could think of the view as the interior
of a property or the outer layer of a property that the inhabitants
interact with. The interior can be customised for purpose and the same
property can have many different types of tenants. For example a
property of a particular design could contain residential dwellings.
The same internal space could easily be used as office space, where
although in the same property has a different purpose. However the
property structure is the same. Therefore the environment in which the
users interact does not interfere with the structure of the building.
Controllers
The controller is where the magic happens and defines the business
application logic. This could be where the user has sent a response
from the view, then this response is used to process the internal
workings of the request and processes the response back to the user.
Taking a typical response where a user has requested to buy a book.
The controller has the user id, payment details, shipping address and
item choice. These elements are then processed through the business
logic to complete a purchase. The data is passed through the system
into the model layer and eventually after the entire request satisfies
the business definitions, the order is constructed and the user
receives their item.
If we compare this to a property, we could compare the ordering of a
book online to turning on a light switch. A tenant will flick the
switch to on just like ordering a book. The switch itself is an
element in the view layer which sends the request to the controller
just like clicking a checkout button on a web site. The business logic
in this case is what the electrician installed and are embedded within
the property designs. The switch is flicked, which completes the
circuit. Electricity runs through all the wires including the fuse box
straight through to the light bulb. Just like the user receiving a
book, in this case the tenant receives light. The whole process behind
the scenes involving the electricity cabling is not visible to the the
tenant. They simply interact with the switch within the space and from
there the controller handles the request.
Models
The models in MVC are the bottom most layer and handle the core logic
of the system. In most cases this could be seen as the layer that
interacts with the data source. In systems using MVC, the controller
will pass information to the model in order to store and retrieve
data. Following on from the example above controller definition, this
is where the order details are stored. Additional data such as stock
levels, physical location of product of the book amongst many things
are all stored here. If that was the last book in stock ordered, the
next request for this item may check if it’s available and disallow
the order as the item is no longer available.
Sticking with out example of turning on a light switch, this level in
our structure could be the electricity supply. When the tenant flicks
the switch, the internal circuit must request electricity to power the
request which is similar when the user requested data from the
database, as in data is needed to process a request. If the dwelling
isn’t connected to an electric supply, it cannot complete the process.
Business benefits from using MVC
After you get the message across explaining what MVC is, you will then
have to see what benefits can be obtained from it. I’m not going to go
into a huge amount of detail here are I’m sure you can apply benefits
more accurately which are directly related to you actual situation. To
list just some of the common benefits of an MVC based system here are
a few examples:
Different skill levels can work on different system levels. For example designers can work on the interface (View) with very little
development knowledge and developers can work on the business logic
(Controller) with very little concern for the design level. Then they
simply integrate together on completion.
As a result of the above separation projects can be managed easier and quicker. The designer can start the interfaces before the
developer and vice versa. This development process can be parallel as
opposed to being sequential therefore reducing development time.
Easy to have multiple view types using the same business logic.
Clear route through the system. You clearly know where there different levels of the system are. With a clear route of the system,
logic can be shared and improved. This has added security benefits as
you clearly know the permitted route from the data to the user and can
have clear security checks along the route.
Each layer is responsible for itself. (Relates to point 1) This means that you can have clean file structure which can be maintained
and managed much easier and quicker than a tightly couple system where
you may have lots of duplicate logic.
Having a clear structure means development will be more transparent which should result in reduced development time,
maintenance problems and release cycles if applied properly.
Source: http://www.strongandagile.co.uk/index.php/a-really-simple-explanation-of-mvc/

Another option is keep programming using WebForms, for that, you have to choose the right application:

MVVM - Patterns and Practicality

I've been using MVVM for a while now with WPF. And i've learnt a lot over the course of development (going from never using it, to having a couple of applications developed in it)
However, recently I had some comments directed at the code which made me wonder if i'm doing things the right way. My current setup works (roughly) like this:
Model - Responsible for storing the data, data validation using
IDataErrorInfo and dirty tracking
ViewModel - Responsible for getting the data (from a repository like
pattern) and formatting it for a view's consumption (things like
filtering, ordering) also responsible for command handling from the
view (save, load, filter changes etc)
View - The usual UI stuff
Now it was mentioned to me that i should NEVER have business logic inside the model, and that the model should be as thin as possible, the viewmodel should be responsible for handling things such as data validation and dirty tracking.
I've seen comments and criticism on both sides of this, with people against and for putting logic in the model, What i have yet to see is any actual reasons for these sweeping statements. So id love to know if there is an actual reason i should be refactoring my setup.
Also, given that i do move the logic to the viewmodel, I can see the need for having multiple viewmodels where i currently have a single, for example:
Person - Model
PersonViewModel - Handles the dirty tracking, data validation etc
PersonsViewModel - Handles getting a collection of PersonViewModels,
filtering etc
PersonsView - The UI
This seems a little redundant, but perhaps i'm misunderstanding something. What I'm really looking for is some actual reasons for doing this one way or another, or if this is another argument like the use of code-behind in MVVM (pure opinion with little reasons etc)

High level description of MVVM:
View: User Interface
Model: Business logic and data (e.g Domain Model+Repositories, or Transaction Script+POCO entities, etc)
ViewModel: Data exposted to view in such form, that is easily consumable from view. Wikipedia's definition says: The view model is an abstraction of the view that exposes public properties and commands.
I like the Practical MVVM Manifesto (archived version) principes: Simplicity, Blendability, Designability, Testability.
This is very high level and abstract description and that's why you may find a lot of variations of MVVM. Whatever mvvm style you choose, keep in mind the responsibilities and principles and you should be ok. Try to avoid complexity. MVVM is not a silverbullet and you cannot cover all scenarios with single design pattern. One mvvm implementation may be suitable for one application but not for another. I, for example, build my mvvm architecture from scratch for each new project to ensure the best fit
When is comes to responsibilities:
Take validation as an example:
validation logic that password and repeat password inputs should be equal is clearly presentation logic and should be present in viewmodel. On the other side, there may be business rule, that password must contain at least one special character. This logic should reside in Model, however you may expose it in viewmodel to be easily consumable from view. It's a business logic, but you may need to present it somehow.
if you have application that only uses webservice to retrieve and store then your model will be probably just the data access components.
Here is couple of resources:
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_View_ViewModel.
MVVM is variation of Martin Fowler's MVP pattern, you may find it useful as well: http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/PresentationModel.html
MSDN (Pattern and practices): https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh848246.aspx

I like to think of the Model layer as anything that has nothing to do with how the app is hosted (i.e. independent of WPF). It is one or more dlls that represent the business domain and the operations that need to be performed in it. If it would make sense to take theses same dlls and use them in a web application, windows service e.t.c then it is usually a sign that the split between Model and ViewModel is appropriate.

There's no simple answer to your question. The simplest answer is that the model and view model should contain the code that you should unit test. The separation between model and view model is a little less distinct. I like to keep the model as simple as possible and limit it to whatever is exchanged with the server tier. The view model should encapsulate the model, and provide any addition functionality (both business logic and abstract presentation logic) so that you can keep the presentation layer as simple as possible (declarative, in the case of WPF XAML).

I see it this way:
Model - Object that can be passed around. A Common type between different layers for communication.
ViewModel - Specifically created for Views. This should contain UI logic, for example, Data Annotations etc will go here. You might also call your web service methods here (assuming your actual business logic sits in a facade layer, or your database logic sits in a different layer/project) to populate the Views, dropdowns etc. You might end up with multiples of these per view, depending on your design.
View - UI Only.
I am not afraid to put external calls in the ViewModel

MVC pattern implementation. What is the n-relation between its components

I'm working in a C# project and we are , in order to get some unity across the different parts of our UI, trying to use the MVC pattern. The client is windows form based and I'm trying to create a simple MVC pattern implementation.
It's been more challenging than expected, but I still have some questions regarding the MVC pattern. The problem comes mostly from the n-n relationships between its components: Here is what I've understood, but I'm not sure at all of it. Maybe someone can correct me?
Model: can be shared among different Views. 1-n relationship between Model-View
View: shows the state of the model. only one controller (can be shared among different views?). 1-1 relationship with the Model, 1-1 relationship with the controller
Controller: handles the user actions on the view and updates the model. One controller can be shared among different views, a controller interacts only with one model?
I'm not sure about the two last ones:
Can a view have several controller? Or can a view share a controller with another view? Or is it only a 1:1 relationship?
Can a controller handle several views? can it interact with several models?
Also, I take advantage of this question to ask another MVC related question. I've suppressed all the synchronous calls between the different members of the MVC, making use of the events and delegates. One last call is still synchronous and is actually the most important one: The call between the view and the controller is still synchronous, as I need to know rather the controller has been able to handle the user's action or not. This is very bad as it means that I could block the UI thread (hence the client itself) while the controller is processing or doing some work. How can I avoid this? I can make use of the callback but then how do i know to which event the callback comes from?
PS: I can't change the pattern at this stage, so please avoid answers of type "use MVP or MVVC, etc ;)
Thanks!

Model, View, and Controller are conceptual layers, not individual objects, so honestly it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be thinking of them in terms of multiplicities. Nevertheless, I can try to approximate an answer for you.
A Controller returns a single result for a single action; that result may be an actual view or it may be something else. However, the Controller doesn't really actually have any interaction with the view; all it does is provide one or two pieces of information in its result: The name of the view that should be used and (optionally) the model used to populate. It's up to the View Engine to actually create and bind the view, which is a considerable departure from normal Smart Client UI logic.
A Controller may interact with several different pieces of the Model, or not interact with it at all in some cases; there is no rule for that side of the relationship. In an action result, a Controller has to give back either 0 or 1 instances of a "model", but this may not be the true Domain Model, it could be a View Model.
A View is generally bound to exactly one Model (or View Model), although in some cases a View might simply be content and therefore not bound to anything.
So, in the very crude UMLesque parlance:
Controller:Model = 0..* : 0..*
Controller:View = 0..* : 0..1 (request) or 0..* : 0..* (overall)
View:Model = 0..* : 0..1
This is all specific to ASP.NET MVC. If you were designing your own MVC implementation then obviously you could choose to implement it any way you like. Good luck implementing MVC in WinForms, though; Forms don't behave like Views at all, even patterns like MVP/MVVM are quite difficult (though not impossible, c.f. Microsoft's CAB/SCSF) until you move to WPF.

I´ve implemented the MVC pattern in C#. Don´t know very much about theory, or how it should be, or shouldn´t be. I just think that the pattern is the base idea, and then, you can use this idea in many different ways, depending on your own needs. I´ll tell you about my implementation, and hope it helps you.
**The Model**
Your description is pretty clear, so don´t have much more to said. Here is where I define my bussiness objects. I take advantage of this layer to include objects validation rules.
**The Controller**
In addition to handle the user actions and update the view, I have a Unit Of Work for each controller. I check that the objects in the view pass the validations (defined in the model layer) before commit changes in the Unit Of Work.
In my case, one controller can manage many models, and I like to have only one view in each controller.
Like a suggestion, I´d like to use my Framework with diferent UI, so I have an abstract implementation of Controller, and then I have specific controller implementations for different interfaces (WebForms, WinForms, ...).
**The Views**
In your case, we could call them, simply, the forms, the UI, ... I like to organize my desktop applications as if they were web applications, using tabs. One tab represents one controller, and so on, one view, and one or more models.
In conclussion, and in my case:
n models - 1 controller
1 controller - 1 view
--
n models - 1 view

You're probably over-thinking and over-formalizing it a bit.
Here's how I look at it:
Model: This is the actual thing that does real work.
Controller: This is the thing that sends inputs into the model, so it will do work.
View: This displays the results.
That's it. The easiest analogy to use is a console application - the app is the model, STDIN is the controller, and STDOUT is the view.
Extending that analogy, many GUI apps are built on top of command-line apps by attaching to STDIN/STDOUT. In that case, the things sending data to STDIN are the controller, the things taking data from STDOUT and putting on the window are the View, and the console app is still the model.
It's CS 101 again - input, processing, output. It's only trickier for a GUI app because the input and output are typically on the same window.
You (obviously) don't need to actually have a console app to do this - the separations can be done even in a single process. All the other weird wiring stuff that takes place is just whatever is needed to get this relationship between the parts to work. But the wiring isn't the important bit - the important bit is the separation of responsibilities and logical organization of the code.
So, whether 1 view must map to 1 controller, or any other orthognality issues are secondary. In fact, you should probably just do whatever your problem domain requires, but I'd (as typical) argue against over-eager generalization of code - IOW, don't mush things together that aren't really the same.

Converting WPF / ADO.NET Data Services application to the MVVM pattern - Examples

I have a WPF application which was written in C#. This application hasn't been written with any particular design pattern in mind, but as I have learnt .NET I've realised that the MVVM model would be suitable. Thus, I'd like to start converting the code.
This will be the first time I've used MVVM, and whilst I'm willing to get stuck in, I'm finding it difficult to find solid MVVM examples online where an ADO.NET Data Service is the Model and XAML is the View. I'd like to look over some examples before setting off on the process of converting my own app to make sure I have correctly understood what I am doing!
Can anyone recommend a small (but non-trivial) example application with code which uses WPF, ADO.NET Data Services and the MVVM model?

I recommend starting with any example that uses MVVM with WPF, and there are many. The fact is that a clean implementation of MVVM will not have any true data access code in it -- data access should be handled by another, abstracted layer (see MVVM where to put Data Access Layer?).
Work on designing a viewmodel that encapsulates all of the data and interaction that your (already existing) views require. Clean out your codebehind and get your view binding to your viewmodel.
Once you have that going, you can worry about how to get your objects to and from a persistence store, but the actual work of doing so does not belong in the M, V, or VM.
I know that there are tons of examples with data access right in the viewmodel or even the model, but those are meant to be quick illustrations that don't require tangents to address dependency injection, facades, etc.
Find any nontrivial example of MVVM in WPF, and when you get to the part where they deal directly with data access, remind yourself that at that point you'll be using an abstraction of persistence.

Service Layers and Repositories

I've been using MVC frameworks for a short while now and I really like how the concerns are separated out. I've got into a bad habit of letting the controllers do quite a bit of work. So I'm really looking for some advice.
When I first started using MVC I quite often had the controller doing manipulation on the models after database work had been done. I knew this was bad so moved that work into the models. However I'm not happy with that as I want my models to be very learn.
I've done a bit of reading and I see that people are keeping their controllers and models lean by having a service layer, which I like the look of.
I'm just trying to understand how a service layer and repository should all work together. Here are my assumptions, can you please let me know if this is a good way of working?
The controller can call the repository directly if no manipulation needs to be done on the data and as such a service layer does not need to get involved
Once any work needs to be done to data (business logic) then this should be done in the service layer and the controller will make a simple call to the service layer as and when required
Once a service has done it's business logic it will then use the repository as necessary (if data needs to be persisted).
Models ideally should be kept lean, ideally actings as nothing more than DTOs
Validation of data will be done within the models (using MonoRail validation attributes). I appreciate not even one likes polluting their models with lots of attributes, but that is a different discussion. I like the benefit of MonoRail's validation attributes for the automatic jQuery validation in the UI.
I'm trying to turn all my code around to the single responsibility principle, hence trying to sort out my coding practices.
Thanks

First, there is no set of rules that's going to work in every situation. How you model you're application depends a lot on the type and complexity of the project. Having said that, here are some ideas:
Nothing wrong with calling the repository from a controller. Just make sure the controller does not contain business logic.
The service takes care of (some) business logic and uses other services to do so. The repository is a type of service, there's nothing wrong with calling it from a service.
The model should contain business logic, actually you should always try to put it in the model first. If you need external data to perform that business logic (from another model or from the repository) then you should create a service.
Nothing wrong with validation in the models. Using attributes or not is a question of taste (if you like it then it's good). Move the validation outside of the model if it gets too complex (create a external set of rules).
Most important, do what feels right (that's usually the right answer).

This video gives great insight into how to organize your asp.net MVC solution and addressing separation of concerns, and better testability. Hopefully it will help someone else also. I learned some good stuff from it.

Ian Cooper has just written a blog post called The Fat Controller on just this subject.