Should the model just be data structures? Where do the services (data access, business logic) sit in MVC?
Lets assume I have a view that shows a list of customer orders. I have a controller class that handles the clicks on the view controls (buttons, etc).
Should the controller kick off the data access code? Think button click, reload order query. Or should this go through the model layer at all?
Any example code would be great!
Generally I implement MVC as follows:
View - Receives data from the controller and generates output. Generally only display logic should appear here. For example, if you wanted to take an existing site and produce a mobile/iPhone version of it, you should be able to do that just by replacing the views (assuming you wanted the same functionality).
Model - Wrap access to data in models. In my apps, all SQL lives in the Model layer, no direct data access is allowed in the Views or Controllers. As Elie points out in another answer, the idea here is to (at least partially) insulate your Controllers/Views from changes in database structure. Models are also a good place to implement logic such as updating a "last modified" date whenever a field changes. If a major data source for your application is an external web service, consider whether wrapping that in a model class.
Controllers - Used to glue Models and Views together. Implement application logic here, validate forms, transfer data from models to views, etc.
For example, in my apps, when a page is requested, the controller will fetch whatever data is required from the models, and pass it to a view to generate the page the user sees. If that page was a form, the form may then be submitted, the controller handles validation, creates the necessary model and uses it to save the data.
If you follow this method, Models end up being quite generic and reusable. Your controllers are of a manageable size and complexity because data access and display has been removed to Models and Views respectively, and your views should be simple enough that a designer (with a little training) could comprehend them.
I wouldn't put Data Access Code in the Controller.
To build on what has already been said, it's important to think of layering WITHIN the layers. For example, you will likely have multiple layers within the Model itself - a Data Access Layer which performs any ORM and Database access and a more abstract layer which represents the Business Objects (without any knowledge of HOW to access their data).
This will allow you to test the components of your system more easily, as it supports mocking.
I like to keep the "contracts", or interfaces, for model persistence or service access in the domain (model) layer. I put implementations of data access or service calls in another layer.
The controllers are instantiated with constructors that take interfaces for the services, e.g. ISomeService, as parameters. The controllers themselves don't know how the service layers are implemented, but they can access them. Then I can easily substitute SqlSomeService or InMemorySomeService.
I've also been fairly happy with a concrete service implementation that takes a domain (model) layer repository as a parameter to its constructor.. For example: ICatalogRepository with SqlServerCatalogRepositry : ICatalogRepository is handed to CatalogService(ICatalogRepository, ISomeOtherDependency).
This kind of separation is easier with dependency injection frameworks.
The View would relay what should happen on a click in the UI to the Control layer, which would contain ALL business logic, and would in turn call the Model layer which would only make database calls. Only the model layer should be making database calls, or you will defeat the purpose of the MVC design pattern.
Think about it this way. Let's say you change your database. You would want to limit the amount of code change required, and keep all those changes together without affecting other pieces of your application. So by keeping all data access in the Model layer, even the simple calls, you limit any changes required to the Model layer. If you were to bypass the Model layer for any reason, you would now have to extend any changes needed to any code that knows about the database, making such maintenance more complex than it should be.
Related
When I'm processing business logic in an MVVM app. Should I do this on the Model or the ViewModel?
For example, if I want to re-calculate costs after an Asset has been re-valued, should I operate on the Model?
Is there an advantage in doing this on the ViewModel instead?
What happens if I have a list of ViewModels, but I want to translate that into a list of Models so I can do some processing? I could expose the Model as a property of the ViewModel (and use that to build the list of Models). But that means that the View will be able to access properties of the original Model
My suggestion is to put logic in a service layer instead.
This is a middle layer between view model and model (which, in a real object oriented paradigm, should only contains properties).
So the correct life circle may be:
View model -> service -> model handling.
This allows also to reuse business logic code through others view model if needed
The Model's purpose is to represent (or model) your business domain. Therefore, business logic by definition goes in the Model, not the ViewModel.
The job of the ViewModel is to expose properties and fields of the Model, and prepare them for consumption by the View.
For instance, picture a banking application. The Model may represent an account. Perhaps the Model has an account balance. The job of the Model may be to track the balance and make sure certain invariants are maintained (such as not allowing a withdrawal that is larger than the balance). The job of the ViewModel may be to turn the balance into a string that is used as a binding in the View.
You want to keep as much logic out of the ViewModel as possible to keep your code reusable and loosely coupled.
Use the model if you are building a web app; and one level bellow the model i.e. the domain level if you are building a LAN/desk app.
Your problem - re-calculate costs after an asset has been re-valued - might not just be a user interface issue. A back-end application might want to do the same (for example, for automatically importing data). And then you have a choice of either duplicating business logic or rewiring to existing one.
Nothing wrong with using the same model for the back-end too. But models -especially disconnected ones- tend to be large data structures because they need to bring with them all data from reference tables (unless you want to do round trips to server and sacrifice your GUI experience). And that might affect performance if model is used.
if you model contain required data for calculation you can use model.if model does not contain the data means create view-model and get data to do the calculation.(With respect to Business logic )
if you want to pass this data to view create View Model It improves code re-use opportunities
first of all, please forgive me if I get the terminology wrong. Terminology is important, but similar concepts are often expressed with different terms.
Let's say I have two, not well defined, "entities" in my presentation layer that must use the same data retrieved from the Service layer. What does entities should be?
Should these entities be both presenters of MVPs? If so, does it make sense to create two MVP triads that handles somehow the same data (but of course in a different way)?
Is it perhaps better to have one presenter and multiple views?
Or maybe it means that the Model is too bloated and it should be split into different models?
Although I am sure there is a design issue somewhere in our code, I noticed that we have several classes, that cannot even be defined as presenters, using independently the same data from the service layer and this bothers me a lot.
In MVP, the Presenter is tighly coupled to each View (since it controls the behaviour of the View). That means if you have multiple Views that differ substantially, then you need to have also multiple Presenters.
But neither the View nor the Presenter hold any data. The Model is the representation of the current state of the data in the application.
So if the data you fetch from the service layer is handled in the same way for both cases (but just presented differently), then you should have one Model which is referenced by both Presenters.
But if what you fetch is just some kind of "raw" data which gets processed in a very different way, then you probably should also create an own Model for each Presenter/View. The model can reference the fetched data which can be held somewhere in the Service layer or a higher level model object.
After reading many articles about this i'm still not really sure what's the best solution could look like
Some telling me the ViewModel and the Model should get access to Database other are telling me only the Model should get access.
Further more does this also really depends on the way i connect to my database?
if i use a Repository should really both get access to it and
what if i want to use a EF should now only the "Model" are able to perform Database interactions?
Or does anybody know's a general rule about who should when are able to get access to the Database?
You should devide your application in Layers
UI layer - Responsible for the graphic part of your application containing your Views and ViewModels.
BusinessLayer - This is the layer your UI layer speaks with. Containing all logic and and it functions as gateway to your database. This contains your model and domain model.
Database layer - This layer is responsible for all communication to your database, generally providing generic methods for your Business layer to access and persist your data.
You should keep a clear seggregation between your UI and data.
There are offcourse many variations on this setup.
I am creating a solution from scratch, using ASP.NET Web forms C#.
I am concerned about the model objects as I don't want to create duplicate sets of model objects in each layer. What is the best practice for using Model objects in 3 layer architecture in Web Forms?
The structure I have in mind is as follows:
UI
BLL
DAL
Model
The Model will contain all the model classes that can be used in each section of the layers. I thought this would be useful as each layer needs access to the model objects. For example:
UI calls a method in BLL passing in a model object filled with data.
BLL calls a method in DAL passing through the object which is saved
in the database etc.
Thanks
Models can be a cross-cutting concern with your layers, which is a quick way to do it. Or you can create interfaces for your models such that you could simply flesh out the interface in something like the BLL - this at least stops it being cross-cutting.
It further depends on if your models are simple data containers (anemic domain model), or contain behaviour, such as the ability to validate themselves or track changes themselves (rich domain model).
You can find that your DAL actually consists of two parts: the boilerplate-never-specific to an app code to talk to the database, and the app-specific populate-the-model code. We have this situation. We share interfaces of our models around, the app-specific DAL code can use this interface in order to push and pull data from the model, but the "true" DAL code works with raw stuff.
In a relatively small application, you can share your Domain Entities all the way up to your Presentation layer but be aware of the coupling this introduces.
If in your Databinding you except an Entity of type Customer with a property Address with a StreetLine1 and StreetLine2 property then all your layers are tightly coupled together and a change in one layer will probably cause changes in other layers.
So your decision should be based on the scale of your project and the amount of coupling you can have.
If you go for a low coupled design then your BLL will use your DAL to retrieve entities and use those entities to execute behavior. The BLL will then use Data Transfer Objects to pass to your Presentation layer so there is no coupling between your presentation layer and your Domain Model.
look at my answer here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/7474357/559144 this is the usual way I do things and works well, not only for MVC and Entity Framework... in fact in MVC the model could be an entity type which only has some of the fields contained by the real business entities defined in lower layers, it depends if you really absolutely need all fields in the UI level as well or only some to do some data rendering and input...
As a related topic, please see this related answer which I posted recently on avoiding duplication of code and correct architecture in a cross-platform client/server system.
I have +1'd the other posters in this thread as this is not intended to be a full answer, just useful information related to the question.
Best regards,
I'm working on a project which has basically three layers: Presentation, business and data.
Each layer is on a different project and all layers use DTO's defined in another project.
business layer and data layer return DTO's or Lists of DTOs when querying the database.
So far so good, but now we have to query views and those views of course do not match an existant DTO. What we have done until now is just create a special DTO, business- and data-layer classes so they were treated like normal entities (minus insert, update etc.)
But it does not seem correct. Why should the be treated like normal entities when they are clearly not. Well the DTO seems necessary, but creating "business logic" and a datalayer-class for every view seems rather akward. So I thought I create one generic business- and datalayer class which holds the logic/code for all views (I still would have to create a DTO for every different view, perhaps I could use anonymous types)
What do you think about me idea or how would you solve this issue?
EDIT: 9. August 2011
Sorry, the post may have been unclear.
By views I meant Views from a sql-server.
I feel your pain completely. The fact is that in almost every non trivial project with decent complexity you will get to the point where the things you have to show to the users on UI overlap, aggregate or are simply a subset of data of business entities. The way I tend to approach this is to accept this fact and go even further - separate the query side from the business logic side both logically and physically. The fact is that you need your entities only for actual business operations and keeping the business constraints valid, and when does this happen? Only when someone changes the data. So there is no need to even build entities when you display the data.
The way I like to structure the solutions is:
User opens the view -> Query is performed only to get the specific
data for the view -> Returned data is the model (although you could
call it a DTO as well, in this case it's the same thing)
User changes something -> Controller (or service) builds the full entity from repo,
business logic action is performed on the entity -> changes are
persisted -> result is returned
What I want to say is, it is ok to treat your read side separately from write side. It is ok to have different infrastructure for this as well. When you start to treat it differently, you will see the benefits - for example you can tailor you queries to what you need on UI.
You can even get to the point where your infrastructure will allow to build your queries with different techniques, for example using LINQ or plain SQL queries - what is best for certain scenarios.
I would advise against using DTOs between layers. I'm not convinced that there's any benefit, but I'll be happy to take instruction if you think you have some.
The harm comes in maintaining multiple parallel hierarchies that express the same idea (business objects plus multiple DTOs between layers). It means lots more code to maintain and greater possibility of errors.
Here's how I'd layer applications:
view <--- controller <--- service <--- + <--- model
+ <--- persistence
This design decouples views from services; you can reuse services with different views. The service methods implement use cases, validate inputs according to business rules, own units of work and transactions, and collaborate with model and persistence objects to fulfill requests.
Controller and view are tightly coupled; change the view, change the controller. The view does nothing other than render data provided by the controller. The controller is responsible for validation, binding, choosing the appropriate services, making response data available, and routing to the next view.
Cross cutting concerns such as logging, transactions, security, etc. are applied at the appropriate layer (usually the services).
Services and persistence should be interface-based.
I've dropped most layered architectures like this as they are a pain to manage all the transformations and are over-complicated. It's typical astronaut architecture. I've been using the following:
View models for forms/views in ASP.Net MVC. This is an important decoupling step. The UI will evolve separately to the model typically.
No service layer, instead replacing it with "command handlers" (mutating operations) and "finders" (query operations) which represent small operations and queries respectively (CQS - Command Query Separation).
Model persistence with NHibernate and ALL domain logic inside the model.
Any external services talk to the finders and command handlers as well
This leads to a very flat manageable architecture with low coupling and all these problems go away.