Results 1 to 25 of 142
Thread: MVCP - MVC missing a layer?
Apr 16, 2004, 06:10 #36
I can understand how people are having problems with form validation, composite views, and all that other crap. Because most of these 'problems' arise when we define our application from the user's perspective, and they become completely befuddling when we combine these misconceptions with the ultimate anti-pattern in web applications; an MVC-based architecture.
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
MVC, or whatever frameworks us SitePointers propose that bear remarkable similarity to one another's not-quite-MVC-frameworks )), does provide the foundation for separating these two distinct problems. By foundation I mean the architecture, or layering, which supports separation of these problems.
That is exactly the reason that form packages like the above mentioned are so hard, if not impossible, to 'integrate with MVC', simply because they were designed for a different purpose. A perfect example of how users pay the price for trying to use classes that were designed to do too much.
If the concept of a page is meaningless, the the term Page Controller is confusing. Fowler implicitly indicates as much when he tells us that a Page Controller really handles actions. (That, in turn, is a confusing term, but less so.) I can see now that Fowler, on whom I've been leaning heavily, is also confused and doesn't quite know what he's talking about. Neither does anyone else, I think.
I believe the same is true of (not-quite)-MVC: it advocates some design principles that provide benefits to web apps, even if those benefits are not always visible on short term, but a formal definition of the pattern still has to be given.
But if you think of it, all of the 'classic' Design Patterns [GoF] also started out as vague ideas of things that didn't turn out to be patterns until somebody formally described them.
Fowler implicitly indicates as much when he tells us that a Page Controller really handles actions.
Enough vagueness for now.