The goal
Create two "different" methods with the same behavior.
The problem
When someone accesses my application, I want to display a list of items — and this list is the same provided by myapp.com/products/offers/. In other words, I don't want to repeat the same code between the two methods. So I ask: what do I have to do?
What I'm doing now
At HomeController, on Index method whose its type is ActionResult, there is the following code's fragment:
public ActionResult Index()
{
return RedirectToAction("Offers", "Products");
}
Meanwhile, at ProductsController, on Offers method:
public ActionResult Offers()
{
var products = Products.Build.OffersList();
var categories = Categories.Build.Main();
ProductsViewModel viewModel = ProductsViewModel
{
Products = products,
Categories = categories
};
return View(viewModel);
}
Now there are three things to consider:
My application is redirecting the client to another page, generating a second server request wasting bandwidth;
The URL of application is changed from myapp.com/ to myapp.com/Products/Offers/ and I really don't want this;
Will be redundant if I repeat the code — further more that there are things in the ProductsController that by logic should not exist on HomeController.
And, again: What do I have to do?
Move the common logic into a "Service" or "Helper" class:
class ProductListingHelper {
public ProductsViewModel GetProductsViewModel() {
var products = Products.Build.OffersList();
var categories = Categories.Build.Main();
return new ProductsViewModel() {
Products = products,
Categories = categories
};
}
}
Then, in both of your controllers, do this:
return View(new ProductListingHelper().GetProductsViewModel());
Note, that, as Erik points out in the comments, this will require you to create two Views. However, you can also reduce duplication here, by having your ProductListView as a Partial View that the other two views render.
Add a class (usually referred to as a 'Service' class) and move the code you want to reuse into a method in that class (perhaps call the method GetProductsViewModel()) then call that method from each of your controller actions.
Hope that helps.
Related
rI need some advice on where to run a calculation on data.
I have a viewmodel that contains all the fields that I need for my calculation and I created the following for one of my calculations:
public class CommissionVM
{
public int? LoanAmountLock { get; set; } // from loan table
public decimal BranchRev { get; set; } // from revenue table
public decimal BranchProcessFee { get; set; } // from revenue table
public decimal BranchGrossTotal
{
get
{
return Convert.ToDecimal(LoanAmountLock * (BranchRev/ 100) + BranchProcessFee);
}
}
}
I tried to use the Model.BranchGrossTotal in my view, but it is returning 0. I think I have an order-of-operations problem. The values LoanAmountLock, BranchRev, and BranchProcessFee are returned as the results of a query:
public ActionResult Reconcile(int? id, string RevenueLoanType)
{
var model = new CommissionVM()
{
Loan = db.Loan.FirstOrDefault(a => a.id == id ),
BranchRevenues = db.BranchRevenues.FirstOrDefault(a => a.RevenueLoanType == RevenueLoanType),
};
return View(model);
}
I originally was able to get these calculations to work by doing all the math in the controller after I populate the viewmodel with the query, but there will be about 10 calculations, and from what I understand, I shouldn't clutter up my controller with business logic.
What is the best solution for this? Do I need to create another class for the calculations? If so, how do I populate that class with my data and use it in my controller?
EDIT: I am not sure how to set up the business classes and use them in the controller. Can anyone point me in the direction of a tutorial?
You should not do the calculation in your controller nor in your view model. You should do it in the Business Layer. Think about View Models are really simple classes that contain data to be displayed to the user, that's it.
Regarding the calculation, you should convert one of the terms to decimal, not the result of the calculation. If you divide integers, you get an integer.
You could create a class and call it CommissionService for example. That class should call your Data Layer to get the data, do any extra calculation and return the data (maybe a DTO) to the controller. The controller should create View Models based on the DTO and send them to the view.
Read these articles:
1) https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh404093.aspx
2) http://www.asp.net/mvc/overview/older-versions-1/models-%28data%29/validating-with-a-service-layer-cs
3) http://blog.diatomenterprises.com/asp-net-mvc-business-logic-as-a-separate-layer/
4) http://sampathloku.blogspot.com.ar/2012/10/how-to-use-viewmodel-with-aspnet-mvc.html
I don't like calculations on my view models -- you can't reuse the calculation easily elsewhere and it is harder to test and debug. Create separate classes to do business logic.
Your business logic classes can either return your view models or return values you use to populate those models. The trade-off is ease of use with reusability.
I generally favor returning the value rather than a big object so my services are more reusable.
Controller
public class BranchController : Controller
{
private IBusinessService service;
public BranchController()
{
this.service = new BusinessService(db);
}
public ActionResult Reconcile(int? id, string RevenueLoanType)
{
var model = new CommissionVM
{
BranchGrossTotal = this.service.GetBranchGrossTotal(id, RevenueLoanType),
...
};
return View(model);
}
}
Service
You can make any number of these and your controllers would use them as needed. If you need a query you should pass the DbContext instance or you may have problems with related entities on separate contexts.
public interface IBusinessService
{
decimal GetBranchGrossTotal(int id, string revenueLoanType);
}
public class BusinessService : IBusinessService
{
private DbContext db;
public BusinessService(DbContext db)
{
this.db = db;
}
public decimal GetBranchGrossTotal(int id, string revenueLoanType)
{
var branch = db.Branch.First(b => b.Id == id);
// do stuff
return total;
}
}
You could fully-populate and return a view model in your GetBranchGrossTotal() if you choose.
First of all, the properties you are assigning to your CommissionVM on your controller do not match the ones declared on your model. You assign Loan and BranchRevenues, when you have only LoanAmountLock and BranchRevs available on your model.
Please notice that the Loan property is an object itself, and the LoanAmountLock must be retrieved from this object (Loan.LoanAmountLock). The same happens with the BranchRevenues object. You should assign the BranchRevs to the respective property of the BranchRevenues object as needed. If you do not do this, then the values will default to 0 and when trying to calculate the BranchGrossTotal it will obviously be 0.
Another reason, assuming that you are correctly populating your model properties, is that the FirstOrDefault method, renders null values because there is no such entity. This will result also in the BranchGrossTotal to be 0.
You are right that you do not need to clutter your controller neither with calculations nor with db access. I would create a business class ComissionBusiness and instantiate it at the top of your controller. This class would have a method which performs all calculations. You should move the Reconcile method to your new business class method and call it on the reconcile action. Something like (excuse the lack of syntax)
public MyController : Controller {
public ComissionBusiness comissionBusiness;
public MyController(){
comissionBusiness = new ComissionBusiness();
}
public ActionResult Reconcile(int? id, string RevenueLoanType)
{
var model = comissionBusiness.Reconcile(id, revenueLoanType);
return View(model);
}
}
Hello :) I am building an MVC5/EF6 system that has stores information about students with a number of user types . When the user logs in certain information about the user is stored in Session; UserID, UserTypeID etc. Different users have different privileges, and I often need to get the user information from Session within my ActionResult methods in each controller:
private Student GetCurrentStudentInfo()
{
var currentuser = (SessionModel)Session["LoggedInUser"];
var student = _db.Student.Find(currentuser.UserID);
return student;
}
I have this method at the bottom of my controllers, which I call from each method depending on when I need this information. It gets the userID from the current logged in user and returns the profile information. I would like to be able to either:
Make this method available to all my controllers
Or create a class variable that I can use at the top of my controller, which would return this info:
public class RegistrationWizardController : Controller
{
private readonly DefaultContext _db = new DefaultContext();
private UserInfo _userInfo = new UserInfo();
}
I am very new to MVC and coding in general, so any help/opinions/other suggestions are welcome. Thanks!
You have a couple of options.
The first (and easier) of the two is to make all of your controllers inherit from a common base controller. To do this, make a base controller that extends from the default controller:
public class BaseController : Controller
{
protected Student GetCurrentStudentInfo() //protected so we can access this method from derived classes
{
var currentuser = (SessionModel)Session["LoggedInUser"];
var student = _db.Student.Find(currentuser.UserID);
return student;
}
}
Now, change your controllers to inherit the base controller you just created:
public class RegistrationWizardController : BaseController
{
public ActionResult AnAction()
{
var student = this.GetCurrentStudentInfo(); //calls the method inherited from BaseController
}
}
The other option you have is to use Dependency Injection. This is a bit more complicated, and much more abstract than the previous method. There are a bunch of Dependency Injection frameworks, my favorite is Ninject (http://www.ninject.org/). This would probably be closer to the "Industry Standard" of doing something like this, and I would encourage you to at least look into it, but I think a sample would be a little out of scope for this question (do some side reading first). If you do decide to implement it and get stuck, post another question.
Whose responsibility is it to populate the values in an ASP MVC 5 architecture (C#, EF), for e.g. if we have PurchaseRecordsViewModel , PurchaseRecords Domain Model , PurchaseController
Does the code to populate data (time, cost etc) go it the viewmodel, right in its very own the viewmodel go in the PurchaseRecordsViewModel ?
Or, does the code go in the Action method of the PurchaseController
View models are typically just dumb collections of properties. Populating a view model typically rests inside of your service layer or, if you don't have one, your action method.
Think of the roles this way.
A domain model is a direct mapping to a database table.
A view model is a collection of properties needed to display a view.
A service layer gets/uses one or more domain models and populates a view model.
A service layer also can take a view model and create/update one or more domain models
A controller action method is the glue between the two. It calls a service layer to get (GET) a view model and passes it to a view. These action methods also take (POST) a view model and pass it to the service layer to do whatever needs to be done to it.
Another question typically asked is why can't I use domain models for a view? You can, but typically you run into things like, needing data from more than one domain model, not needing all the properties that are in the domain model and lastly, you now would have to worry about properties being updated on the domain model that you did not intend.
Expanding upon Tommy's answer, here is some code to go along with his description.
//Controller
public ActionResult Index()
{
List<OrderViewModel>() model = new List<OrderViewModel>();
model = new ServiceClass().GetOrders();
return View(model);
}
//here is your Service Class, this layer transfers the Domain Model into your ViewModel
public List<OrderViewModel> GetOrders()
{
List<OrderDomain> model = new List<OrderDomain>();
model = new DataAccess().GetOrders();
List<OrderViewModel> viewModel = new List<OrderViewModel>();
foreach (var order in model)
{
OrderViewModel vm = new OrderViewModel();
vm.OrderId = order.OrderId;
vm.OrderName = order.OrderName;
viewModel.Add(vm);
}
return viewModel;
}
//some DataAccess class, this class is used for database access
Public List<OrderDomain> GetOrders()
{
List<OrderDomain> model = new List<OrderDomain>();
using (var context = new MyEntities())
{
model = (from x in context.Order
select new OrderDomain
{
OrderId = x.OrderId,
OrderName = x.OrderName
}).ToList();
}
return model;
}
Edit:
This seems to be a mildly popular answer so I would like to mention I no longer follow this pattern. Instead I've been using mediatr and vertical slice architecture.
Ideally, PurchaseRecordViewModel should populate itself by getting PurchaseRecordsDomainModel. It should contain simple mapping of properties, and possibly some formatting of the output you're going to use in your view.
PurchaseRecordsViewModel
public class PurchaseRecordsViewModel
{
public IEnumerable<PurchaseRecordViewModel> PurchaseRecords {get;set;}
}
PurchaseRecordViewModel
public class PurchaseRecordViewModel
{
public DateTime Date {get;set;}
public decimal Cost {get;set;}
// .... some other properties
public PurchaseRecordsViewModel(PurchaseRecordsDomainModel domainModel)
{
Date = domainModel.Date;
Cost = domainModel.Cost;
// .... some other property mappings
}
}
What your action method on PurchaseController should do, is orchestrating the process of getting your PurchaseRecordsDomainModel, creation of PurchaseRecordsViewModel from PurchaseRecordsDomainModel and passing it to the View. Action method itself shouldn't contain any code that deals with connecting and retrieving data from database (in your case querying EF context), or any business logic. You should try to have loosely coupled modules, talking to each other via abstractions, this way you will ensure your application is maintainable, extensible and testable.
Also, try to draw clear separation between various layers of your system. For example, it is not a good idea to have EF entities as Domain Model Entites. You don't want your business logic layer to depend on data access layer, think of it this way, what if at some point of time in the future, you are moving away from EF and using some other ORM or even other technology to store and query data. You don't want to change business logic layer just because you're changing your data access layer. So to go from words to code in your case.
Considering that you already have your view and view model, I would create PurchaseRecordsService class in domain layer(please note depending in your case you might not use Repositories, but some other technique, this example is mainly to illustrate my point)
public class PurchaseRecordsService
{
private readonly IPurchaseRecordsRepository _purchaseRecordsRepository;
public PurchaseRecordsService(IPurchaseRecordsRepository purchaseRecordsRepository)
{
if(purchaseRecordsRepository == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("purchaseRecordsRepository");
}
_purchaseRecordsRepository = purchaseRecordsRepository;
}
public IEnumerable<PurchaseRecordsDomainModel> GetPurchaseRecords()
{
// trivial case, real code can be more complex
return _purchaseRecordsRepository.GetPurchaseRecords();
}
}
Then in your domain layer, you could define IPurchaseRecordsRepository
public interface IPurchaseRecordsRepository
{
IEnumerable<PurchaseRecordsDomainModel > GetPurchaseRecords();
}
The idea is, our PurchaseRecordsService needs a way to communicate with databases, so whoever uses it, must supply implementation of IPurchaseRecordsRepository. Next step is to move to our data access layer and create implementation class of IPurchaseRecordsRepository.
public class EfPurchaseRecordsRepository: IPurchaseRecordsRepository
{
private readonly EfObjectContext _objectContext;
public EfPurchaseRecordsRepository(string connectionString)
{
_objectContext = new EfObjectContext(connectionString);
}
public IEnumerable<PurchaseRecordsDomainModel > GetPurchaseRecords()
{
var purchaseRecords = (from p in _objectContext.PurchaseRecords
....
select p).AsEnumerable();
return purchaseRecords .Select(p => p.ConvertToDomainPurchaseRecord());
}
}
And the last piece - we need to define our Action in PurchaseController
public class PurchaseController: Controller
{
private readonly IPurchaseRecordsRepository _repository;
public PurchaseController(IPurchaseRecordsRepository repository)
{
if(repository == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("repository");
}
_repository = repository;
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
var purchaseRecordsService = new PurchaseRecordsService(_repository);
var purchaseRecordsViewModel = new PurchaseRecordsViewModel();
var purchaseRecords = purchaseRecordsService.GetPurchaseRecords();
foreach(var purchaseRecord in purchaseRecords)
{
var purchaseRecordViewModel = new PurchaseRecordViewModel(purchaseRecord);
purchaseRecordsViewModel.PurchaseRecords.Add(purchaseRecordViewModel);
}
return View(purchaseRecordsViewModel);
}
}
To recap, what we have is loosely coupled code, our Presentation and Data Access Layers don't know about each other, and they depend only on Domain layer. If you need, you can replace MVC front end with WPF for example, move from EF to another technology, your code is testable.
Ideally, your view model should be unaware of your domain model, so I'd say that you put your population logic in your controller, perhaps packed away in some sort of mapping/population utility class.
But remember, when it comes to questions about where to put certain logic, personal preference goes a long way.
This is for an asp.net mvc3 project. I have two views and their own corresponding viewmodels.
Home.aspx has a viewmodel HomeVM
HomeChild.aspx has a viewmodel as HomeChildVM.
Now HomeChildVM is derived from HomeVM and has a few properties more that are used in its own view. My controller has one action method that returns the Home view and another action method that returns the HomeChild view. Both these action methods call one business method that returns a type as HomeVM. Then my action methods return the same to the aspx view.
return View(objHomeVM);
Now, instead of writing another business method and repeating all the code all over again just to return another viewmodel type ie HomeChildVM, I am assigning the properties of objHomeVM to objHomeChildVM one by one like so:
objHomeChildVM.prop1 = objHomeVM.prop1;
objHomeChildVM.prop2 = objHomeVM.prop2;
and then returning it:
return View(objHomeChildVM);
Is there a better way to do this than by assigning properties one by one? I feel this is too primitive a way, unless this is the only way to do it.
HomeChild.aspx currently has this page directive
<%# Page Title="" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<HomeChildVM>" %>
If I change that to HomeVM then I wont be able to use the extra properties that HomeChildVM has which are only specific to HomeChild.aspx page.
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks for your time...
Have you considered creating the required ViewModel outside the business method and then passing a reference of the ViewModel into your business method, as a type of HomeVM, to be populated? ie:
public ActionResult HomeAction()
{
HomeVM objHomeVM = new HomeVM();
BusinessMethod(objHomeVM);
return View(objHomeVM);
}
public ActionResult HomeChildAction()
{
HomeChildVM objHomeChildVM = new HomeChildVM();
BusinessMethod(objHomeChildVM);
return View(objHomeChildVM);
}
private void BusinessMethod(HomeVM objHomeVM)
{
...
objHomeVM.prop1 = prop1;
objHomeVM.prop2 = prop1;
...
}
Remember ViewModels are simply normal objects. The only thing special about them is that they are called ViewModels.
Just a note on your view models. I would create a view model for both views, even though some of the properties are used in both. What are you going to do if you have to remove one of the properties in HomeVM? Then HomeChildVM falls apart.
Getting back to your question on assigning the properties one by one.. I would suggest you look at Auto Mapper. It takes care of mapping the properties between objects for you.
UPDATED
Once you have your types, and a reference to AutoMapper, you can create a map for the two types:
Mapper.CreateMap<Customer, CustomerDto>(); // Create the map
The type on the left is the source type, and the type on the right is the destination type. To perform a mapping, use the Map method:
CustomerDto dto = Mapper.Map<Customer, CustomerDto>(customer);
Here is some sample code that you could write/use to map between 2 objects:
public static Customer Map(CustomerEntity entity)
{
return new Customer
{
CustomerId = entity.CustomerId,
Company = entity.CompanyName,
City = entity.City,
Country = entity.Country
};
}
And then to use it would look something like this:
Mapper.Map(customer);
I want to improve current implementation of the ASP.NET MVC Framework.
Current code:
routes.MapRoute(null, "I-want-to-fly", new { controller = "Airport", action = "Fly" });
public class AirportModel
{
public List<Plane> Planes { get; private set; }
public List<Pilot> Pilots { get; private set; }
public void AddFly(Plane plane, Pilot pilot, Passenger passenger)
{
// . . .
}
}
public class AirportController
{
private AirportModel model;
[HttpGet]
public ViewResult Fly(string from, string to)
{
var planes = return (from p in model.Planes
where p.CityFrom == from && p.CityTo == to
select p).ToList();
return View(planes);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Fly(Plane plane, Passenger passenger, DateTime time)
{
if (!(ModelState.IsValid && plane.TimeOfDeparture == time))
return View();
var pilot = (from p in model.Pilots
where p.Free && p.CanAviate(plane.Id)
select p).First();
model.AddFly(plane, pilot, passenger);
return RedirectToAction("Succeed");
}
}
My proposal:
routes.MapRoute(null, "I-want-to-fly", new { model = "Airport", action = "Fly" });
public class AirportModel
{
private List<Plane> planes;
private List<Pilot> pilots;
private void AddFly(Plane plane, Pilot pilot, Passenger passenger)
{
// . . .
}
[HttpGet]
public ViewResult Fly(string from, string to)
{
var planes = return (from p in model.Planes
where p.CityFrom == from && p.CityTo == to
select p).ToList();
return View(suitablePlanes);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Fly(Plane plane, Passenger passenger, DateTime time)
{
if (!(ModelState.IsValid && new PlaneController().CanFly(plane, time)))
return View();
var pilot = (from p in pilots
where p.Free && p.CanAviate(plane.Id)
select p).First();
AddFly(plane, pilot, passenger);
return RedirectToAction("Succeed");
}
}
public static class PlaneController
{
public static bool CanFly(Plane plane, DateTime time)
{
return plane.TimeOfDeparture == time; // it will be more complex
}
}
You see, in such way we don't need excessive count of controllers and their methods. Model would create controller only by perforce: mostly to verify user input (not input validation, business validation).
What do you think, can this idea have a continuation? Or, what is wrong with it?
Thanks for your replies!
UPDATE: I noticed, that we need to replace implementations of controller and view as a result of changing the model's state (mostly). So, if model causes to change the implementation, why model cannot do it?
UPDATE 2: It seems to me I explained incorrectly. I don't want model to do all work, of course no! I try to say, that not controller should decide what to do with model and what view is the most suitable for this user request.
Doesn't it strange, that model doesn't know how to visualize itself, but some controller knows?
Doesn't it strange, than we need controller for the GET request, where there is nothing to control?
I try to remove those strangenesses.
UPDATE 3: I understand that it cannot be applied anywhere. The main question is: can it improve some part of current implementations of MVC ? Mostly I'm interested in ASP.NET MVC -- can we
remove redundant controllers or some its methods
work directly with models
using this idea? Is it possible and what are the problems of this idea?
Found problems:
More strong connection between model and view/controller -- but currently I don't think it's a problem. Actually it shows that views and controllers were created in help for the major element -- model.
UPDATE 4: I changed the code, showing "before/after". Maybe this example will be better.
Doesn't this just violate the whole idea of MVC? Your model is separated from your controller and your view. In this way (the way you propose) you would not be able to replace your model by another implementation, or your controller for that matter.
updated I:
You could of course let your model do the part of the controller as well, but from that moment on you're not talking about the MVC design pattern anymore. For MVC, the model does and should not now about the view. That's the controllers job.
The controller receives user input and initiates a response by making calls on model objects. A controller accepts input from the user and instructs the model and viewport to perform actions based on that input.
In the MVC pattern, the Model isn't just fixed to your database model, it could be a combination of your database model and a repository pattern as well, where you implement your business logic.
The biggest problem I see with your proposal is that it makes code non-reusable. I get a model that is tightly coupled with it's views which I really don't want if I want to reuse the model in whatever way I might want to.
Update II
I think your are being mislead by the actual word Controller, I had that thought for a while and your latest comment sort of confirms this for me
Controllers are some objects, that check correspondence of user input to business-logic.
Controllers act upon user input, they might check the user input but their responsibility for checking validity stops there. Business logic goes in the Model (again, the Model as defined by the MVC pattern, not the model as in datamodel). Their main purpose is deciding what View to display.
Also from one of your latest comments:
How do you think, if [asp.net mvc] would be developed in my way, would it solve problem of redundant controllers?
Asp.Net MVC follows the MVC design pattern. Your proposal does not. It seem more like a ModelControlled View pattern, just to coin a name. Also, there are no redundant controllers, the controllers are no problem, they are an integral part of the solution.
And an effort to simplistically clarify what I mean with a code example:
namespace DataProject.Model
{
public class AirportModel
{
public List<Plane> Planes { get; set; }
public List<Pilot> Pilots { get; set; }
public List<Passenger> Passengers { get; set; }
public List<Flight> Flights { get; set; }
}
}
namespace SomeProject.Repository
{
public class AirportRepository
{
private DataProject.Model.AirportModel model;
//constructor sets the model somehow
public bool AddFlight(Plane plane, List<Passenger> passengers, DateTime time)
{
//Business logic
if (plane.TimeOfDeparture != time) return false;
var pilot = (from p in model.Pilots
where p.Free &&
p.CanAviate(plane.Id)
select p).FirstOrDefault();
//More Business logic
if (pilot == null) return false;
//Add plane, pilot and passenger to database
model.Flights.add(new Flight{Pilot = pilot, Plane = plane, Passengers = passengers});
//Even here you could decide to do some error handling, since you could get errors from database restrictions
model.Save();
return true;
}
public List<Planes> GetPlanes(string from, string to)
{
return (from p in model.Planes
where p.CityFrom == from && p.CityTo == to
select p).ToList();
}
}
}
namespace MVCApp.Controllers
{
public class AirportController
{
private SomeProject.Repository.AirportRepository repository;
[HttpGet]
public ViewResult Fly(string from, string to)
{
var viewModel = repository.GetPlanes(from, to);
return View(viewModel);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Fly(Plane plane, List<Passenger> passengers, DateTime time)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid) return View();
if (!repository.AddFlight(plane, pilot, passenger)) return View();
return RedirectToAction("Succeed");
}
}
}
No offense intended but how exactly is this an improvement?
So you've made a class called a PersonModel that isn't really doing "model things" at all - it is doing the work that Controllers do - you've got it handling gets and posts and calling out for the display of Views and then you've got a static "Controller" that really controlling nothing and is concerning itself with business logic. Honestly, I don't get how this is an improvement.
A concrete example of is you've got a controller checking whether Age >= 18, which is a very "business rules" thing for a controller to be doing. That's not the purpose of a controller. That's the job of a model object - to concern itself with things like business logic. Controllers, as one person put it, are more of an electronic curator. In your example, you've relegated it to something far less than a curator.
There are distinct roles that objects play in an MVC application. Views show us stuff and provide us with ways to interact with the application. Controllers handle the input coming from the View and serve up views that are needed. Models provides a place to put data and the logic and business rules that the model encompasses. Services handle things like persisting data to some store, like a DB.
You can do everything in one class without controllers at all but you want "separte of concerns"
So the controller is responsible for the http request and validation and the model is responsible only for the data.
You are the programmer then you could agree or disagree with MVC pattern.
But the pattern which you described doesn't support the separation of concern and it breaks out the whole idea about MVC
This has nothing to do with MVC.
This is 'MVNothing'
:)
Just kidding *_^