I'm new to RESTful web services and still figuring out the design/architecture aspect coupled with MVC pattern. I am using Codeigniter framework to implement MVC.
I had a pretty simple question. I am using using form data to update a table in my database. I have written an api that will do this:
http://www.example.com/api/resource/tablename/?param1=info1...
Typical api. What I wanted to know was, in the MVC pattern should I be using cURL in my VIEW to POST data and update my table with the form data or should I still be send the POST data to my controller and make the api call from the controller to update the table.
To me it seems arbitrary at this point as both will accomplish the same thing but what is the standard practice? Is it okay to directly communicate with you api from the VIEW to update your db table??
Is it okay to directly communicate with you api from the VIEW to
update your db table??
Yes, it is...in fact that is pretty much what you should do in this case! Send your data directly to the API. Your API should do all data validation and return an error message (in a standardized format like JSON, XML etc) if any data validation fails OR perform whatever action it needs to do with the POSTed data. A great benefit in doing so would be that your API can be used by any caller and would be a complete ecosystem by itself.
Without knowing more about your intended applications I can say this:
Typically you want to try and keep any processing logic (PHP) out of your views if possible. The whole point of the controller is to handle transaction operations from your model and then pass it to your view. So if you are using an API to gather some data from a service that is intended to be used/manipulated in your view then the logical location for that would be in the controller.
The MVC pattern isn't a hard and fast law of X goes in Y and Y goes in Z. It is a pattern that makes it easy to extend and abstract your data gathering, processing logic, and visual layouts.
Technically depending on the application and how you planned to use it you could create a model for the API so that it could be used in multiple controllers without the need to re-write it.
Related
I'm a novice, but struggling hard to implement this interactive application I'm working on "the right way" or at least a good way in terms of scalability, maintainability, modularity, development speed and tool independence. That's why I chose the REST design guides and a framework which implements MVC.
However I can't get my head around where to put what in the following situation and any input or reading material from a more experienced developer in this techniques would be greatly appreciated :
I'm developing a single page web app which creates a resource that has several nested resources within. In the create methods and alike, I need to call the create methods from the nested resources. Right now every GET request is responded with a JSON, which the front end then parses, shows and add dynamically to the page accordingly. The question is : where should this create and store methods from nested resources be, in the controller or in the model?
Currently, my approach is : since the controller function is to handle user input, interact with model and return the view accordingly, the nested store methods are in the model since they're not created independently, their create methods are in the controller since they're requested from ajax calls, but this isn't nested, and so on. I'm worried that this is too mixed up and not general.
Am I ok ? Am I mixed up? I don't wanna make a mess for my coworkers to understand. Theory becomes tricky when applied..
I'm gonna have a go at this. I am myself still learning about this as well, so if any information is wrong, please correct me.
In terms of scalability, you should always be able to create any model independently, even though at this point it appears not strictly necessary. The REST paradigm stands for exactly this: Each model (a.k.a. resource) has its own (sub)set of CRUD endpoints, which a client application can use to perform any action, on any composition of data (compositions in which elementary entities are mostly the models you specify).
Furthermore, a model should be concerned with its own data only, and that data is typically found in a single table (in the case of relational datastores). In many cases models specify facilities to read related resources, so that this data can be included when requested. That might look like the line below, and the response is ideally fully compliant with the JSON API specification:
GET //api/my-resources/1?include=related-resource
However, a model should never create (POST), update (PUT) or delete (DELETE) these relations, not at all without explicit instructions to do so.
If you have a procedure where a model and its nested models (I assume related models) are to be created in a single go, an extra endpoint can be created for this action. You'd have to come up with a sensible name for that set of resources, and use that throughout your application's HTTP/support layer.For instance, for creation of such a set, the request might be:
POST //api/sensible-name { your: 'data' }
Keep the { your: 'data' }
part as close to a typical JSON API format as possible, preferably fully compliant. Then, in your back-end (I suppose Laravel, inn your case) you'd want to create a factory implementation that might be called <SensibleName>Factory that takes care of figuring out how to map the posted data to different models, and how their relations should be specified. Under the hood, this factory just uses the model classes' creation facilities to get you where you want to go.
When you would instead automate this process in your model it would be impossible to create the resources independently.
When you would instead automate this process in any single-resource controller that would be non-compliant with the REST paradigm.
With the factory pattern, you explicitly use that class to perform the higher level action, and none of the above concerns apply, not speaking about whether this approach is in accordance with REST at all.
The key takeaway is that the exact same result must still be achievable by performing multiple requests to single-resource endpoints, and your additional /api/sensible-name endpoint just substitutes for the need to call to those multiple endpoints, for the purpose of convenience, when you DO want to create multiple records in a single go.
Note that my statement has little to do with what endpoints to create to fetch nested resources. This SO question has some pretty good conversation as to what is acceptable, and how your specific needs might relate to that.
In the end, it's all about what works for you and your application, and REST and the like are just philosophies that propose to you an approach for similar needs in general web development as well as possible.
I have an MVC PHP web application that needs to call a REST API. I'm unclear on whether I should be calling the API from my controller or from the model? Looking at various resources I'm getting mixed information. I assume it should be from the Model since all I'm doing is dealing with data and passing that up to the controller correct?
Some more details to clarify. I do have full control over the REST API which I'm in the process of building and is in PHP as well. The API however will also be leveraged by an iOS and Android companion app built by my team and a few other apps running on proprietary devices.
The original plan was that the web app was not going to leverage the API and just go straight to the DB to cut out any overhead, but several debates later and I'm leaning toward using the API.
I'd call from the model if the REST resource is a representation of the model, or if you're going to need this functionality across multiple controllers.
Call from the controller if it is not 100% specific to the model representation, or if it is only important to the controller/view you're working with.
You should call the web API from the Controller. The Model is how the data is passed from the Controller to the View. The Model should only have data and no business logic.
When you get the response from the web API, the data should be put into the Model and passed to the View.
The Model, the View and the Controller make up the MVC pattern. The Controller is responsible for putting the data in to the Model, which it passes to the View. The View takes the Model and displays the data, as it has been told to. There is no Business Logic in either the Model or the View.
Ideally, you would put your API code into a class library, that the controller uses. This allows you to separate the business logic out of the website and into a separate component.
Overview: I am building a CMS using PHP, and I am trying to implement this using MVC. I am trying to extend my code using this structure, as it represents an accurate representation of MVC and it is quite straightforward. To communicate with my database I use Domain Objects and Data Mappers.
Questions:
Is it really necessary to have a 1:1:1 mapping between a model, a view, and a controller?
Example: For a blog system, when displaying a blog entry page I would create a controller called DisplayEntryController, and a View called DisplayEntryView. The view would get its information from the BlogMapper class (which communicates with the DB to retrieve the current blog entry) and a CommentMapper class (which communicates with the DB to retrieve the comments for the current blog entry). Is this good practice, considering that view works with 2 model objects? If not what is the alternative? If yes, how can this be implemented in a generic way?
Can multiple controllers handle one page? For the example above, would it be possible to have a DisplayEntryController and a CommentController handling the relevant parts of a page displaying the blog entry? If yes, how would the 2 controllers coordinate?
Thank you in advance. Examples will be greatly appreciated.
Most PHP MVC implementations I've seen on the web use the page approach to organise their MVC. E.g. for the Home page, you have one view, one controller and one model. Routing for 1:1:1 mapping in MVC is straightforward, as you can enforce the location and naming of your MVC components, and when a request for the Home page comes it automatically looks for the following classes: HomeView HomeController and HomeModel.
This obviously doesn't work well in larger projects. How should routing be handled to support routing to multiple models (DataMappers), multiple views, without creating an overcomplicated router or adding a complex dependency injection layer?
Example: As discussed above, when displaying a blog entry you display
the blog entry code and the comment section. To achieve this, it
communicates with two DataMappers, the one which gets the blog entry,
and the one which returns the comments for the blog. How can the view
be assigned to work with these two datamappers to get the data from
the DB?
There is no requirement to have a 1:1 mapping of the model, controller and view.
MVC works of a concept of a tiered approach to handling your application, with each tier being handled by 'agents' to implement the way they see fit. To explain this further, consider the following scenario.
Assume you process data, then hand them over to someone to store. You don't care where they store it and how they store the data, as long as the information is available again when you need it. You can happily go about processing your data, and then say to them for example 'This is project data for Client X, store it,' and later say 'Can you give me the project data for Client X.'
SO MVC works on this approach, whether the data storage guys dump all data together or pack them away is not important to you. However, what is important is the interface between the two parties when sending and retrieving. For example, you could decide to store the information as either Client data, or Project Data, or both.
Likewise, you could have agents collecting data and handling it to you to process. You don't care how many interfaces they use (for example, phone, web, email, mobile devices), but you care about what data they hand you. (Of course a rule might dictate that only web information must be handled). So the interfaces for collecting data might be different.
Therefore, each agent can use the most efficient method (and even combine or split them) to get the system working in their side, and therefore there is no mapping of the data.
Backbone tutorials I have read implement some type of a mini-framework (i.e. Slim) with a RESTful architecture performing CRUD on a server db, like this. The Backbone docs state you need a RESTful api, which I believe is due to the Backbone Route and Sync functionality that keeps models up to date, which is a huge aspect of my choosing to use Backbone.
For example, the line below maps a faux url (route) to the 'addWine' function (within a Slim api):
$app->post('/wines', 'addWine');
Assumption 1: If I have a (PHP) CMS backend (and not a mini-framework) I assume I could simply replace the 2nd parameter (addWine) with my own CMS class method call and return a json object.
Assumption 2 But I would not be able to directly call that same class method from a link in the html without causing backbone to lose state and thus it's ability to sync the model data (and remember the browsers history).
Assumption 3 In that case, I will need to use the Slim api and route backbone urls through (Slim) RESTful CRUD calls in order to access my CMS database to keep backbone happy.
If those assumptions are correct, then it would seem backbone is intercepting those HTTP calls - which leaves me wondering how the whole RESTful + Backbone relationship works. Can you explain some of it?
If my assumptions are incorrect, then I need more help than I thought. Can you help with that?
Thanks
I can't speak intimately to your three assumptions, but as for your final question -- Backbone does not "intercept" HTTP calls -- it constructs them, just as any other javascript library would to create an AJAX request.
Backbone is relatively agnostic to your server side language/framework. Here is what Backbone expects any time "sync" is called:
Backbone's sync function uses different HTTP request types based on which method was called. These different HTTP request types are:
POST
GET
PUT
DELETE
Your framework needs to support all of the above to support the "out of the box" functionality of Backbone. This means that you must specify all of the above routes within your application in order to work with Backbone.
One other thing to note is the "create" and "update" method does not carry post data with the request specifically -- instead it sends a content body with a json digest of the data and expects the server side to properly parse a JSON object and deal with it appropriately.
I say yes to all three assumptions and also agree with #Andy Baird.
Also, the only problem to your project is how to notify Backbone that you have updated the database and you would like it to update itself in the front-end. I can only see two solutions:
1) using Javascript's setInterval() - if you do not need the front end to be updated immediately on DB update, you can check for changes every 1 minute, Backbone knows to only update what has changed and add new stuff but of course this is not healthy to the server if you have 1k active people making repeated request every minute
2) using SocketIO or similar service - this way you can send from the server to Backbone either the entire list of modifications to your DB or a simple 'Please refresh, new stuff waiting'. Check this discussion.
I'm building a webapp in MySQL/PHP/Javascript.
In PHP, I've got all the classes from the domain od the problem which persist in the database.
In Javascript, there is a cache with objects from the last queries.
When an object in Javascript is updated by the user, it has to update itself in server-side. Which would be the best way to do this?
Should I create a class in PHP and Javascript for communication purposes? Should each object in Javascript send an AJAX query to a different php file depending on the class of the object it needs to update?
Are there any patterns to follow to solve this?
Creating a separate PHP file for each class would certainly be more maintainable if this is a project of any size at all. It would also allow you to do things like have different server-level authentication based on the classes.
On the JavaScript side, you definitely want some sort of AJAX library, whether you throw it together yourself (I did one once in about 50 lines of JavaScript) or use one of the ones out there. You may need a helper function or two that knows how to serialize the data (XML, JSON, delimited, whatever).
You can write object oriented code in JavaScript, and if you're doing that already, it makes sense to add a write() or updateServer() method to call the AJAX library with the right parameters for consistency. If you're not writing OO code, it still may make sense to have separate functions, but only if there's more than one place you need to persist these objects from.
Most AJAX frameworks (jQuery etc) will send an 'HTTP_X_REQUESTED_WITH' header set to 'xmlhttprequest'. I like to use this to decide which view to use.
This means the same url can be used to retrieve JSON, XML, or HTML snippet via JavaScript or to return a full document if a standard GET / POST request is made.
This means your app will simply revert to normal requests should the user have JS disabled.
I think you should have a look into the RESTful API with PHP and JavaScript. You address your domain model objects as unique resources (e.g. /application/books/1). If you only want to implement CRUD functionality a generic Controller that updates the corresponding domain model (e.g using an ORM tool like Doctrine) should be sufficient.
If you really want to have the same model on the client side in JavaScript depends on your Application. I like the idea of just managing a single JavaScript object on the client side which will be loaded via REST and then populated to HTML Forms and send back e.g. as JSON (or as a simple form submit) to the server. If the client side model idea appeals to you, I recommend to have a look at JavaScript MVC which has a quite interesting model implementation.