Prizes & Awards
My Profile
Active Members
TodayLast 7 Days
more...
|
Resources » Articles » .NET Framework »
Mvc/mvp
|
In MVC, the model stores the data, the view is a representation of that data, and the controller allows the user to change the data. When the data is changed, all views are notified of the change and they can update themselves as necessary (think EventDispatcher).
MVP is a derivative of MVC, mostly aimed at addressing the "Application Model" portion of MVC and focusing around the observer implementation in the MVC triad. Instead of a Controller, we now have a Presenter, but the basic idea remains the same - the model stores the data, the view is a representation of that data (not necessarily graphical), and the presenter coordinates the application.
In MVP the Presenter gets some extra power. It's purpose is to interpret events and perform any sort of logic necessary to map them to the proper commands to manipulate the model in the intended fashion. Most of the code dealing with how the user interface works is coded into the Presenter, making it much like the "Application Model" in the MVC approach. The Presenter is then directly linked to the View so the two can function together "mo' betta".
Basically, in MVP there is no Application Model middle-man since the Presenter assumes this functionality. Additionally, the View in MVP is responsible for handling the UI events (like mouseDown, keyDown, etc), which used to be the Controllers job, and the Model becomes strictly a Domain Model.
MVC: Three components – View (your UI), Model (your business entities / data – that view is displaying) & Controller (contains the logic that alters the model depending on the action triggered by UI, typically implementing a Use Case). It’s widely known that MVC is a compound pattern (View and Controller have Strategy implementation, View itself can be a Composite implementation & View and Model are synched through Observer). In this case Controller doesn’t know anything about View, and the idea is that a View can switch Controllers (for instance depending upon who has logged to the system) & a single controller can be used by multiple Views. View subscribes to the changes done to the model & hence both are sync from the data perspective. One of the disadvantages of MVC is that it’s difficult to unit test. Controller manipulates the data but how about asserting those changes from a view perspective. For instance on click of a button you raise an event to controller, and controller modifies the value in model. This value modification changes the font size / color in View. Unit testing this scenario is slightly difficult in MVC.
MVP: Again three components. But dependencies change (look at arrows in the diagram). Over here we replace Controller with Presenter (one which presents the changes done in model back to view). The main difference between both is that Presenter refers back to the view while Controller doesn’t. Normal pattern found here is to create an abstraction of the View (in terms of properties / events) & Presenter refers to it. This makes the mocking of View much easier (also model sync is with presenter) & hence the Unit Testing aspect. Presenter here hence takes the responsibility of not only manipulating model but also updating the view. Of course the implementations of MVP differ in real world in terms of how much thin the view is, some prefer keeping basic logic still inside view & taking complex logic in presenter, while others prefer keeping the entire logic in Presenter. Martin fowler describes 2 variations on MVP on these lines namely – Supervising Controller & Passive View.
In MVP, the Presenter contains the the UI business logic for the View. All invocations from the View delegate directly to Presenter. The Presenter is also decoupled directly from the View and talks to it through an interface. This is to allow mocking of the View in a unit test. One common attribute of MVP is that there has to be a lot of two-way dispatching. For example, when someone clicks the "Save" button, the event handler delegates to the Presenter's "OnSave" method. Once the save is completed, the Presenter will then call back the View through it's interface so that the View can display that the save has completed.
MVP tends to be a very natural pattern for achieving separated presentation in Web Forms. The reason is because the View is always created first by the ASP.NET runtime. You can find out more about both variants.
Two primary variations
Passive View: The View is as as dumb as possible and contains almost zero logic. The Presenter is a middle man that talks to the View and the Model. The View and Model are completely shielded from one another. The Model may raise events, but the Presenter subscribes to them for updating the View. In Passive View there is no direct data binding, instead the View exposes setter properties which the Presenter uses to set the data. All state is managed in the Presenter and not the View.
* Pro: maximum testability surface; clean separation of the View and Model
* Con: more work (for example all the setter properties) as you are doing all the data binding yourself.
Supervising Controller: The Presenter handles user gestures. The View binds to the Model directly through data binding. In this case it's the Presenter's job to pass off the Model to the View so that it can bind to it. The Presenter will also contain logic for gestures like pressing a button, navigation, etc.
* Pro: by leveraging databinding the amount of code is reduced.
* Con: there's less testable surface (because of data binding), and there's less encapsulation in the View since it talks directly to the Model.
Model-View-Controller
In the MVC, the Controller is responsible for determining which View is displayed in response to any action including when the application loads. This differs from MVP where actions route through the View to the Presenter. In MVC, every action in the View correlates with a call to a Controller along with an action. In the web each action involves a call to a URL on the other side of which there is a Controller who responds. Once that Controller has completed it's processing, it will return the correct View. The sequence continues in that manner throughout the life of the application:
Action in the View
-> Call to Controller
-> Controller Logic
-> Controller returns the View.
One other big difference about MVC is that the View does not directly bind to the Model. The view simply renders, and is completely stateless. In implementations of MVC the View usually will not have any logic in the code behind. This is contrary to MVP where it is absolutely necessary as if the View does not delegate to the Presenter, it will never get called.
Presentation Model
One other pattern to look at is the Presentation Model pattern. In this pattern there is no Presenter. Instead the View binds directly to a Presentation Model. The Presentation Model is a Model crafted specifically for the View. This means this Model can expose properties that one would never put on a domain model as it would be a violation of separation-of-concerns. In this case, the Presentation Model binds to the domain model, and may subscribe to event coming from that Model. The View then subscribes to events coming from the Presentation Model and updates itself accordingly. The Presentation Model can expose commands which the view uses for invoking actions. The advantage of this approach is that you can essentially remove the code-behind altogether as the PM complete encapsulates all of the behavior for the view. This pattern is a very strong candidate for use in WPF applications and is also called Model-View-View Model.
|
Responses
|
No responses found. Be the first to respond and make money from revenue sharing program.
|
|