ZF MVC - Objects and Mappers - php

I'm using ZF for an MVC application and am massively confused about how my code should be structured.
I've got a procedural application which is basically 1 huge long file with functions for everything I want my app to do.... like: getUsername($id) etc. So now I'm remaking the entire thing in ZF because my current codebase is unworkable, crap and hard to debug.
I'm new to MVC and massively confused about how it should all be laid out, what should talk to what etc. So I know about Views about being templates and Controllers needing to be skinny and that you should have fat models but I'm confused where the logic needs to be.
I'm making a game and there usual objects like.... Users, Villages, Armies, MapSquares, Resources etc.
If I was thinking about it completely by theory I would just say:
1 User Object contains many villages, each village belongs to one square and contains an army (which contains many units).
So what I thought was that my Models should contain no logic, just a list of get and set functions for retrieving the data and that the logic for processing, asking questions should be done inside the Mapper... like:
$villageMapper = new VillageMapper();
// Get village from database using mapper
$village = $villageMapper->getVillage($id, new Village());
When I want to determine say the outcome of two villages attacking one another, where would this be done? Would I do something like:
$outcome = $villageMapper->determineAttackOutcome($village1, $village2);
Or would I have say... a battle object with a bit of logic inside it?
$battle = new Battle();
// Add participants
$battle->addAttacker($village1)->addDefender($village2);
$outcome = $battle->performAttack();
// Save village changes cause of battle
$villageMapper->save($battle->getAttacker());
$villageMapper->save($battle->getDefender());
I have a bunch of DbTable php files, which I guess all the Database code lives in... so my question is: Should my Mapper objects ONLY really be used for things like, getting and saving to the database?
Thanks, Dom

There are many different interpretations of MVC, but this is how I understand it:
Model: Contains virtually all the logic pertaining to a specific item. Each thing that must be modeled (in your case users, villiages, etc) has a model to go with it. The model has functions to get data out and put data in (i.e. getters and setters). The model also does error checking and such and makes sure that nothing conflicting is entered in.
View: Has no logic whatsoever. In a web application, this is literally just the thing that says where to put stuff on the page. In some frameworks you feed a view a model (i.e. ASP.NET MVC3), in other frameworks (like Savant3 for php) it can be fed anything. The controller generally feeds the view, but the if the view is given a model it just reads from the model and doesn't write to it.
Controller: Controls the interaction between the user and the model. When the user does something, the controller translates that into things that the model must do. For example, if you say to the program "Please move my character 6 spaces north", the controller will say "Is there anything to run in to 6 spaces north of here?" and if it sees the spot is clear it tells the character model "Move yourself 6 spaces north". After doing that, it will send data to the view about whatever should be displayed as a result of that. Most of the actual logic implemented in a controller should be user-model instead of model-model. The interactions between models can be either taken care of by methods in individual models or other models that encapsulate some sort of behavior or interaction.
So, on to your implementation:
I would make a battle object (which is a model) whose constructor takes two villages or whatever is fighting. It would have a method called execute or doBattle or something that the controller would call and then the battle object would perform its logic to decide the outcome and update the status of the combatants (i.e. lowering hp, giving experience, etc). It would return to the controller the result so that the controller knows what to do (i.e. if the controller needs to forget about a model because it died, it would tell it that). This return value could also be the thing sent to the view to tell the outcome of the battle.
Some of your models (such as user, village, etc) would be kept in the database and so the model would know how to map itself to that database (or it would talk to another layer that knows how to map it) and also take care the exact implementation of updating the database and stuff (the controller would call the actual method to "save", but the model would be the only thing knowing what goes on behind the scenes). Other models (such as battle) don't need to exist in the database since they are just logic encapsulating some interaction.

Having a fat model means then nearly all of the logic exists within the model.
Some sugesstions...
If you are doing Domain Driven Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-driven_design) your village object could be an aggregate root that manages the business logic of that village.
A battle could also be an aggregate root that consists of two (or more) village objects, or a service that takes in two village objects and returns an "outcome" object. You could also do something along the lines of $village->attack($anotherVillage) that could return a battle object that you may then persist.
I would suggest following Domain Driven Design and the Repository pattern when it comes to creating and persisting these business objects http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff649690.aspx

Datamapper should only be used for storing and retrieving data from your database and mapping that data to your domain objects (Users, Villages, Armies, MapSquares).
You could put your logic inside your domain objects, but I like to use a service layer instead.
In your controller your would do something like:
function attackAction() {
$gameService->doVillageBattle($villageId1,$villageId2);
}
GameService would look like:
doVillageBattle($villageId1,$villageId2) {
$village1 = villageService->getById( $villageId1);
$village2 = villageService->getById( $villageId2);
if ($village1->getStrength() > $village2->getStrength()) {
$village1->winBattle();
$village2->looseBattle();
$villageService->save($village1);
$villageService->save($village2);
}
}
And finally VillageService would have:
function save( $village ) {
villageMapper->save( $village );
}
So controllers talk to services only, and services talk to each other or to datamappers logically associated with them. Services host most of the "business logic" and are database independent. Datamappers are independent of services & controllers ofcourse.

Related

Why separate Model and Controller in MVC?

I'm trying to understand the MVC pattern in Phalcon.
In my current application I only need ONE template file for each table. The template contains the datagrid, the SQL statement for the SELECT, the form, add/edit/delete-buttons, a search box and all things necessary to interact with the database, like connection information (of course using includes as much as possible to prevent duplicate code). (I wrote my own complex framework, which converts xml-templates into a complete HTML-page, including all generated Javascript-code and CSS, without any PHP needed for the business logic. Instead of having specific PHP classes for each table in the database, I only use standard operation-scripts and database-classes that can do everything). I'm trying to comply more with web standards though, so I'm investigating alternatives.
I tried the INVO example of Phalcon and noticed that the Companies-page needs a Companies model, a CompaniesController, a CompaniesForm and 4 different views. To me, compared to my single file template now, having so many different files is too confusing.
I agree that separating the presentation from the business logic makes sense, but I can't really understand why the model and controller need to be in separate classes. This only seems to make things more complicated. And it seems many people already are having trouble deciding what should be in the model and what should be in the controller anyway. For example validation sometimes is put in the model if it requires business logic, but otherwise in the controller, which seems quite complex.
I work in a small team only, so 'separation of concerns' (apart from the presentation and business logic) is not really the most important thing for us.
If I decide not to use separate model and controller classes,
what problems could I expect?
Phalcon's Phalcon\Mvc\Model class, which your models are supposed to extend, is designed to provide an object-oriented way of interacting with the database. For example, if your table is Shopping_Cart then you'd name your class ShoppingCart. If your table has a column "id" then you'd define a property in your class public $id;.
Phalcon also gives you methods like initialize() and beforeValidationOnCreate(). I will admit these methods can be very confusing regarding how they work and when they're ran and why you'd ever want to call it in the first place.
The initialize() is quite self-explanatory and is called whenever your class is initiated. Here you can do things like setSource if your table is named differently than your class or call methods like belongsTo and hasMany to define its relationship with other tables.
Relationship are useful since it makes it easy to do something like search for a product in a user's cart, then using the id, you'd get a reference to the Accounts table and finally grab the username of the seller of the item in the buyer's cart.
I mean, sure, you could do separate queries for this kind of stuff, but if you define the table relationships in the very beginning, why not?
In terms of what's the point of defining a dedicated model for each table in the database, you can define your own custom methods for managing the model. For example you might want to define a public function updateItemsInCart($productId,$quantity) method in your ShoppingCart class. Then the idea is whenever you need to interact with the ShoppingCart, you simply call this method and let the Model worry about the business logic. This is instead of writing some complex update query which would also work.
Yes, you can put this kind of stuff in your controller. But there's also a DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle. The purpose of MVC is separation of concerns. So why follow MVC in the first place if you don't want a dedicated Models section? Well, perhaps you don't need one. Not every application requires a model. For example this code doesn't use any: https://github.com/phalcon/blog
Personally, after using Phalcon's Model structure for a while, I've started disliking their 1-tier approach to Models. I prefer multi-tier models more in the direction of entities, services, and repositories. You can find such code over here:
https://github.com/phalcon/mvc/tree/master/multiple-service-layer-model/apps/models
But such can become overkill very quickly and hard to manage due to using too much abstraction. A solution somewhere between the two is usually feasible.
But honestly, there's nothing wrong with using Phalcon's built-in database adapter for your queries. If you come across a query very difficult to write, nobody said that every one of your models needs to extend Phalcon\Mvc\Model. It's still perfectly sound logic to write something like:
$pdo = \Phalcon\DI::getDefault()->getDb()->prepare($sql);
foreach($params as $key => &$val)
{
$pdo->bindParam($key,$val);
}
$pdo->setFetchMode(PDO::FETCH_OBJ);
$pdo->execute();
$results=$pdo->fetchAll();
The models are very flexible, there's no "best" way to arrange them. The "whatever works" approach is fine. As well as the "I want my models to have a method for each operation I could possibly ever want".
I will admit that the invo and vokuro half-functional examples (built for demo purposes only) aren't so great for picking up good model designing habits. I'd advise finding a piece of software which is actually used in a serious manner, like the code for the forums: https://github.com/phalcon/forum/tree/master/app/models
Phalcon is still rather new of a framework to find good role models out there.
As you mention, regarding having all the models in one file, this is perfectly fine. Do note, as mentioned before, using setSource within initialize, you can name your classes differently than the table they're working on. You can also take advantage of namespaces and have the classes match the table names. You can take this a step further and create a single class for creating all your tables dynamically using setSource. That's assuming you want to use Phalcon's database adapter. There's nothing wrong with writing your own code on top of PDO or using another framework's database adapter out there.
As you say, separation of concerns isn't so important to you on a small team, so you can get away without a models directory. If it's any help, you could use something like what I wrote for your database adapter: http://pastie.org/10631358
then you'd toss that in your app/library directory. Load the component in your config like so:
$di->set('easySQL', function(){
return new EasySQL();
});
Then in your Basemodel you'd put:
public function easyQuery($sql,$params=array())
{
return $this->di->getEasySQL()->prepare($sql,$params)->execute()->fetchAll();
}
Finally, from a model, you can do something as simple as:
$this->easyQuery($sqlString,array(':id'=>$id));
Or define the function globally so your controllers can also use it, etc.
There's other ways to do it. Hopefully my "EasySQL" component brings you closer to your goal. Depending on your needs, maybe my "EasySQL" component is just the long way of writing:
$query = new \Phalcon\Mvc\Model\Query($sql, $di);
$matches=$query->execute($params);
If not, perhaps you're looking for something more in the direction of
$matches=MyModel::query()->where(...)->orderBy(...)->limit(...)->execute();
Which is perfectly fine.
Model, View and Controller were designed to separate each process.
Not just Phalcon uses this kind of approach, almost PHP Frameworks today uses that approach.
The Model should be the place where you're saving or updating things, it should not rely on other components but the database table itself (ONLY!), and you're just passing some boolean(if CRUD is done) or a database record query.
You could do that using your Controller, however if you'll be creating multiple controllers and you're doing the same process, it is much better to use 1 function from your model to call and to pass-in your data.
Also, Controllers supposed to be the script in the middle, it should be the one to dispatch every request, when saving records, when you need to use Model, if you need things to queue, you need to call some events, and lastly to respond using json response or showing your template adapter (volt).
We've shorten the word M-V-C, but in reality, we're processing these:
HTTP Request -> Services Loaded (including error handlers) -> The Router -> (Route Parser) -> (Dispatch to specified Controller) -> The Controller -> (Respond using JSON or Template Adapter | Call a Model | Call ACL | Call Event | Queue | API Request | etc....) -> end.

MVC. If the View does not know about the request how does it fetch data?

In a MVC application it is easy to understand how the Controller extracts data from the request and updates the Model layer but I am a bit confused as to how a View is supposed to retrieve data from the Model layer when the View does not know about the request?
For example if I go to
http://www.site.com/product/view/428
I route the URL and I dispatch the request and I end up in the Controller. Nothing needs to be done in the Controller(I think?) and when it gets to my View I need the product ID but the View should not be extracting data from the Request so what do I do?
Thanks.
There are two approaches for handling this and both actually would indicate that controller in this case a significant role to play.
The fabled ways of ancients ..
The first option for resolving this issue would be adhering to classical MVC as close as possible. This kinda relates to what people mean, when they say 'you cannot do classical MVC for web'. In classical MVC the view observes model layer. And that part can actually be implemented.
If that's the approach you want to take, then you will have to learn about Observer (1), (2) pattern and how to use it in PHP (1), (2). Though there has been some push for moving away from Observer pattern.
Since I have not explored this approach in any meaningful way, I will not give any examples.
The puny trail from this decade ..
If you read Fowler's "GUI Architectures" article, you might notice the part which state that views and controllers form pairs. When applying the ideas of MVC to context of web, there are ways to benefit from it in the bootstrapping stage of application.
FYI : I'm not anymore so sure, that you can call this way "Model2 MVC". There are some significant inconsistencies. I'm gonna poke more at this nagging suspicion some more, when I'm bored.
Consider this fragment:
$router->route( $request );
$resource = $request->getParameter('controller');
$view = new {'Views\\'.$resource}($serviceFactory);
$controller = new {'Controller\\'$resource}($serviceFactory, $view);
$method = $request->getMethod(); //post, get & etc.
$command = $request->getParameter('action');
$controller->{$command.$method}($request);
$view->{$command}();
echo $view->render();
The controller fragment in your example URL would be "product" and action would contain "list". I left those names instead of resource/command pair to make it less confusing.
If you start out with a premise that views and controllers are paired to some extent (whether the pairing is cohesive or not is debatable), then you can express it by using same names. This also lets you move the initialization of view out of controller.
Another aspect which is encapsulated in the fragment above is the fact that, due to the request-response nature of web, every operation in controller will require an accompanying one in the view. And similarly to how you have actions in controllers, you can also opt to call specific, route-related methods in the view. That would remove some boilerplate conditionals from views and let you better organize the whole thing (this is kinda the "highly subjective bit").
So .. how do you turn /product/view/428 request in something visible on site?
As you probably know, the responsibility of controller is to alter the state of model layer, which in this case might code something like this:
public function getView( $request )
{
$warehouse = $this->serviceFactory->provide('warehouse');
$warehouse->chooseItem( $request->getParameter('id') );
}
The your view instance uses the primed service from model layer to acquire data:
public function view()
{
$warehouse = $this->serviceFactory->provide('warehouse');
..
..
// retrieve data about sales for product with ID: 428
$something = $warehouse->getSalesFigures();
..
}
The exact implementation of view will depend on how far off deepend you are willing to go. Two most reasonable options would be:
fetch data, inspect it and if necessary choose templates and dump data into them
use a set of presentation objects to work with model layer and based on the result bind those presentation objects to ant number of templates
my 2 cents
In MVC, A controller "controls" the flow of information between the model, where the information is "stored," and the view, where it is displayed. Therefore, the controller handles all the changes of information and interaction with the models and then sends the necessary information to a view that then displays whatever information was requested/changed/etc.
MVC is all about the separation of responsibilities.
Models are responsible for storing and modeling the application's data.
Views are responsible for displaying information to the user.
Controllers actually have multiple responsibilities:
Deciding when to Create new instances of a Model.
Deciding which instances of Models to Read and passing them to the appropriate View.
Deciding which data in a Model instance needs to be Updated based on data passed back from a View.
Deciding when to Delete no longer needed instances of a Model.
In other words, Controllers sit between the Models and Views and do all the business logic for an application, including figuring out which CRUD operations need to happen... although the actual CRUD operations are usually part of the Model itself.
A better name for MVC would probably be MCV to stress how the Controller sits between the Model and View.

Where do I put a database query in MVC?

The last few days, I have extensively read books and web pages about OOP and MVC in PHP, so that I can become a better programmer. I've come upon a little problem in my understanding of MVC:
Where do I put a mysql_query?
Should I put it in the controller and call a method on a model that returns data based on the provided query? Or should I put it in the model itself? Are both of the options I'm providing total garbage?
Materials on the subject of MVC
You could have listed the books you were reading, because most (if not all) php books, which touch on MVC, are wrong.
If you want to become a better developer, i would recommend for you to start with article by Marting Fowler - GUI Architectures. Followed by book from same author - "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture". Then the next step would be for you to research SOLID principles and understand how to write code which follows Law of Demeter. This should cover the basics =]
Can I use MVC with PHP ?
Not really. At least not the classical MVC as it was defined for Smalltalk.
Instead in PHP you have 4 other patterns which aim for the same goal: MVC Model2, MVP, MVVM and HMVC. Again, I am too lazy to write about differences one more time, so I'll just link to an old comment of mine.
What is Model ?
First thing you must understand is that Model in MVC is not a class or an object. It is a layer which contains multitude of classes. Basically model layer is all of the layers combined (though, the second layer there should be called "Domain Object Layer", because it contains "Domain Model Objects"). If you care to read quick summary on what is contained in each part of Model layer, you can try reading this old comment (skip to "side note" section).
                            
The image is taken from Service Layer article on Fowler's site.
What does the Controllers do ?
Controller has one major responsibilities in MVC (I'm gonna talk about Model2 implementation here):
Execute commands on structures from model layer (services or domain objects), which change the state of said structures.
It usually have a secondary responsibility: to bind (or otherwise pass) structures from Model layer to the View, but it becomes a questionable practice, if you follow SRP
Where do I put SQL related code ?
The storage and retrieval of information is handled at the Data Source Layer, and is usually implemented as DataMapper (do not confuse with ORMs, which abuse that name).
Here is how a simplified use of it would look like:
$mapper = $this->mapperFactory->build(Model\Mappers\User::class);
$user = $this->entityFactory->build(Model\Entities\User::class);
$user->setId(42);
$mapper->fetch($user);
if ($user->isBanned() && $user->hasBannExpired()){
$user->setStatus(Model\Mappers\User::STATUS_ACTIVE);
}
$mapper->store($user);
As you see, at no point the Domain Object is even aware, that the information from it was stored. And neither it cases about where you put the data. It could be stored in MySQL or PostgreSQL or some noSQL database. Or maybe pushed to remote REST API. Or maybe the mapper was a mock for testing. All you would need to do, to replace the mapper, is provide this method with different factory.
Also, please see these related posts:
understanding MVC Views in PHP
testable Controllers with dependencies
how should services communicate between each other?
MVC for advanced PHP developers
Model and Entity Classes represents the data and the logic of an application, what many calls business logic. Usually, it’s responsible for:
Storing, deleting, updating the application data. Generally it includes the database operations, but implementing the same operations invoking external web services or APIs is not an unusual at all.
encapsulating the application logic. This is the layer that
should implement all the logic of the application
Here is the MVC Sequence Diagram which shows the flow during a http request:
In this case Model is the best place to implement the code realted to access database.
The model contains the domain objects or data structures that represent the application's state. [wikipedia]. So the model would be the place to make the database call.
In the 'classic' (lack of a better word atm) MVC pattern the view would get the current state from the model.
Don't make the mistake by saying that the model is for accessing the database. It's more than just accessing the database.
For one, don't use mysql_query() and family; they're being deprecated, so consider also learning about PDO and/or mysqli.
The model takes care of data handling; it provides an interface to the controller by which it retrieves and/or stores information. So this would be a primary place where database actions take place.
Update
To answer a question asked by the OP in the comments: "one generic model for the whole db or a model for each table/action?"
Models are meant to abstract away individual tables (although there are models that exclusively handle a single table); for instance, instead of asking for all articles and then query the usernames for the authors you would have one function like this:
function getArticles()
{
// query article table and join with user table to get username
}
How many models you will create largely depends on how big the project is and how inter-related the data is. If you can identify independent groups of data, it's likely that you'd create a model for each group; but this is no hard & fast rule.
Data manipulation can be part of the same model, unless you want a clear separation between read-only and write-only models (I wouldn't know of a situation that warrants this, but who knows).
To go even further, your model should not contain the database access code. This belongs to another layer outside the Model/View/Controller: this is called the persistence layer, which can be implemented using an Object-Relational Mapper such as the popular Doctrine 2 for PHP.
This way, you never touch any (my)SQL code. The persistence layer takes care of this for you.
I really advise you to have a look at a Doctrine tutorial, this is a really professional way to create your applications.
Instead of working with raw data loaded from the database, you create objects that hold your data, and the behavior associated with it.
For example, you might have a User class, such as:
class User
{
protected $id;
protected $name;
protected $privileges;
public function setName($name) { ... }
public function getName() { ... }
public function addPrivilege(Privilege $privilege) { ... }
public function getPrivileges() { ... }
}
You controller will only interact with objects:
class UserController
{
public function testAction()
{
// ...
$user = $em->getRepository('User')->find(123); // load User with id 123
$user->setName('John'); // work with your objects,
echo $user->getName(); // and don't worry about the db!
$em->flush(); // persist your changes
}
}
Behind the scenes, the ORM takes care of all the low-level work of issuing a SELECT query, instantiating your object, detecting modifications to your object, and issuing the necessary UPDATE statement!

PHP MVC & SQL minus Model

I've been reading several articles on MVC and had a few questions I was hoping someone could possibly assist me in answering.
Firstly if MODEL is a representation of the data and a means in which to manipulate that data, then a Data Access Object (DAO) with a certain level of abstraction using a common interface should be sufficient for most task should it not?
To further elaborate on this point, say most of my development is done with MySQL as the underlying storage mechanism for my data, if I avoided vendor specific functions -- (i.e. UNIX_TIMESTAMP) -- in the construction of my SQL statements and used a abstract DB object that has a common interface moving between MySQL and maybe PostgreSQL, or MySQL and SQLite should be a simple process.
Here's what I'm getting at some task, are handled by a single CONTROLLER -- (i.e. UserRegistration) and rather that creating a MODEL for that task, I can get an instance of the db object -- (i.e. DB::getInstance()) -- then make the necessary db calls to INSERT a new user. Why with such a simple task would I create a new MODEL?
In some of the examples I've seen a MODEL is created, and within that MODEL there's a SELECT statement that fetches x number of orders from the order table and returns an array. Why do this, if in your CONTROLLER your creating another loop to iterate over that array and assign it to the VIEW; ex. 1?
ex. 1: foreach ($list as $order) { $this->view->set('order', $order); }
I guess one could modify the return so something like this is possibly; ex. 2.
ex. 2: while ($order = $this->model->getOrders(10)) { $this->view->set('order', $order); }
I guess my argument is that why create a model when you can simply make the necessary db calls from within your CONTROLLER, assuming your using a DB object with common interface to access your data, as I suspect most of websites are using. Yes I don't expect this is practical for all task, but again when most of what's being done is simple enough to not necessarily warrant a separate MODEL.
As it stands right now a user makes a request 'www.mysite.com/Controller/action/args1/args2', the front controller (I call it router) passes off to Controller (class) and within that controller a certain action (method) is called and from there the appropriate VIEW is created and then output.
So I guess you're wondering whether the added complexity of a model layer -on top- of a Database Access Object is the way you want to go. In my experience, simplicity trumps any other concern, so I would suggest that if you see a clear situation where it's simpler to completely go without a Model and have the data access occur in the equivalent of a controller, then you should go with that.
However, there are still other potential benefits to having an MVC separation:
No SQL at all in the controller: Maybe you decide to gather your data from a source other than a database (an array in the session? A mock object for testing? a file? just something else), or your database schema changes and you have to look for all the places that your code has to change, you could look through just the models.
Seperation of skillsets: Maybe someone on your team is great at complex SQL queries, but not great at dealing with the php side. Then the more separated the code is, the more people can play to their strengths (even more so when it comes to the html/css/javascript side of things).
Conceptual object that represents a block of data: As Steven said, there's a difference in the benefits you get from being database agnostic (so you can switch between mysql and postgresql if need be) and being schema agnostic (so you have an object full of data that fits together well, even if it came from different relational tables). When you have a model that represents a good block of data, you should be able to reuse that model in more than one place (e.g. a person model could be used in logins and when displaying a personnel list).
I certainly think that the ideals of separation of the tasks of MVC are very useful. But over time I've come to think that alternate styles, like keeping that MVC-like separation with a functional programming style, may be easier to deal with in php than a full blown OOP MVC system.
I found this great article that addressed most of my questions. In case anyone else had similar questions or is interested in reading this article. You can find it here http://blog.astrumfutura.com/archives/373-The-M-in-MVC-Why-Models-are-Misunderstood-and-Unappreciated.html.
The idea behind MVC is to have a clean separation between your logic. So your view is just your output, and your controller is a way of interacting with your models and using your models to get the necessary data to give to the necessary views. But all the work of actually getting data will go on your model.
If you think of your User model as an actual person and not a piece of data. If you want to know that persons name is it easier to call up a central office on the phone (the database) and request the name or to just ask the person, "what is your name?" That's one of the ideas behind the model. In a most simplistic way you can view your models as real living things and the methods you attach to them allow your controllers to ask those living things a series of questions (IE - can you view this page? are you logged in? what type of image are you? are you published? when were you last modified?). Your controller should be dumb and your model should be smart.
The other idea is to keep your SQL work in one central location, in this case your models. So that you don't have errant SQL floating around your controllers and (worst case scenario) your views.

MVC, where do the classes go?

My understanding of the MVC is as follows (incase it's horribly wrong, I am afterall new to it)
Models are the things that interface with the database
Views are the design/layout of the page
Controllers are where everything starts and are essentially the page logic
I'm using CodeIgniter but I would hazard a guess it's not just limited to that or possibly even just to PHP frameworks.
Where do I put global classes?
I may have a model for Products and I then run a query that collects 20 products from the database. Do I now make 20 models or should I have a separate class for it, if the latter, where do I put this class (other controllers will need to use it too)
Model is the wrong word to use when discussing what to do with products: each product is a value object (VO) (or data transfer objet/DTO, whatever fits in your mouth better). Value objects generally have the same fields that a table contains. In your case ProductVO should have the fields that are in Products table.
Model is a Data Access Object (DAO) that has methods like
findByPk --> returns a single value object
findAll --> returns a collection of value objects (0-n)
etc.
In your case you would have a ProductDAO that has something like the above methods. This ProductDAO would then return ProductVO's and collections of them.
Data Access Objects can also return Business Objects (BO) which may contain multiple VO's and additional methods that are business case specific.
Addendum:
In your controller you call a ProductDAO to find the products you want.
The returned ProductVO(s) are then passed to the view (as request attributes in Java). The view then loops through/displays the data from the productVO's.
Model is part of your application where business logic happens. Model represents real life relations and dependencies between objects, like: Employee reports to a Manager, Manager supervises many Employees, Manager can assign Task to Employee, Task sends out notification when overdue. Model CAN and most often DO interface with database, but this is not a requirement.
View is basically everything that can be displayed or help in displaying. View contains templates, template objects, handles template composition and nesting, wraps with headers and footers, and produces output in one of well known formats (X/HTML, but also XML, RSS/Atom, CSV).
Controller is a translation layer that translates user actions to model operations. In other words, it tells model what to do and returns a response. Controller methods should be as small as possible and all business processing should be done in Model, and view logic processing should take place in View.
Now, back to your question. It really depends if you need separate class for each product. In most cases, one class will suffice and 20 instances of it should be created. As products represent business logic it should belong to Model part of your application.
In CakePHP there are 3 more "parts" :
Behaviors
Components
Helpers
Logic that are used by many models should be made as a behavior. I do not know if CodeIgniter have this logic or not, but if it doesnt, I would try to implement it as such. You can read about behaviors here.
(Components helps controller share logic and helpers help views in the same way).
The simplest way is to:
Have a model class per database table. In this case it would be an object that held all the Product details.
Put these classes into a package/namespace, e.g., com.company.model (Java / C#)
Put the DAO classes into a package like com.company.model.dao
Your view will consume data from the session/request/controller In this case I would have a List<Product>.
Oh, you're using PHP. Dunno how that changes things, but I imagine it has a Collections framework like any modern language.
#Alexander mentions CakePHPs Behaviors, Components and Helpers. These are excellent for abstracting out common functionality. I find the Behaviors particularly useful as of course the bulk of the business logic is carried in the models. I am currently working on a project where we have behaviors like:
Lockable
Publishable
Tagable
Rateable
Commentable
etc.
For code that transcends even the MVC framework i.e. code libraries that you use for various things that are not tied in to the particular framework you are using - in our case things like video encoding classes etc. CakePHP has the vendors folder.
Anything that effectively has nothing to do with CakePHP goes in there.
I suspect CodeIgniter doesn't have quite as flexible a structure, it's smaller and lighter than CakePHP, but a quick look at the CakePHP Manual to see how Behaviors, Components, Helpers, and the Vendors folder may be helpful.
It should be an easy matter to just include some common helper classes from your models keep nice and DRY

Categories