I use php and usually structure my application into model-view-controller so its always accessed via index.php with class and method attributes. Class attribute passed as part of URL specifies controller class and method simply method to be called. This seems to be pretty common, but then I'm always having trouble in figuring out what controllers shall I create. What is the best, easiest and most applicable way to decide on what controllers should be created? I understand it depends on web application itself but must be some general way of thinking to get this process started.
I've found that building controllers based on your application's objects works well, and can take care of most actions you'll want for your app.
Take a look at SO -- there's URLs starting with /questions, /tags, /users, etc. I'd suggest a design which starts by creating a different controller for each object. /questions (or /questions/list) returns a list of all the questions. /questions/[0-9]+ returns the details of a particular question with that id number. /questions/ask returns the Ask Question interface.
As you continue building your app, you might find that the controller-based-on-objects method doesn't meet all your needs. For example, on my site (http://www.wysiap.com), I eventually made a /list controller to simplify my Grails URL mapping. But in most cases I did use this method and it's easy to figure out which controller should be doing different actions.
I recommend to think about the pages you'll need in your applications to accomplish all the requested tasks. You'll group similar tasks on the same page and create as many pages as you need. A page can be sliced in different views for specific actions.
With this in mind you could have one controller per page. Each view of the page can have its own method (action) in the controller. And inside the method of each view you can have a switch() that will enable you to have several tasks for the view. Example:
index.php (Dashboard controller)
/question-list (QuestionList controller, action index, display the whole page)
/question-list/add (QuestionList controller, action add, manage the "add" view with tasks like show-form, validate-form, insert-question)
/profile (Profile controller, action index)
/profile/edit (Profile controller, action edit, manage all the tasks requested for your profile)
...
I design most of my web applications this way and using Zend-Framework
Related
I have started a new laravel website project and I have hit a road block in my understanding of MVC. I need to refactor to continue but I don't know the best way.
Currently I have web pages that display the results of a single bit of logic. I.e. A page listing all users, a page listing the details of just one user etc etc - all handled by a userController. This applies to other pages being handled by other controllers.
I have created models directly relating to the tables in my database, and controllers in relation on the models. I moved the business logic from the controllers to services. The controllers use the services to perform the business logic and with the data returned, pass that data to the views.
This nicely groups similar functionality together and works fine.
userTable -> userModel -> userController -> userService
clientTable -> clientModel -> clientController -> clientService
...
In my routes, I have pages which do related functionality use the same respective controller, but individual methods depending on what the page does
/listallusers -> userController#list -> userList.blade.php
/listallclients -> clientContoller#list -> clientList.blade.php
/listdetailofoneclient -> clientContoller#details -> clientDetails.blade.php
This is ok when dealing with pages that do that functionality and (apart from using services) seems to be what is hinted at in the laravel docs.
However, I'm starting to get confused about controllers when dealing with pages that either don't really use functionality from any of the services or pages that heavily require functionality from multiple services (and the data needs complex manipulation like formatting or such).
A basic index page.
What controller would handle this? The index might link to routes that are handled by existing controllers but it probably won't need to display much functionality apart from that. That means the controller won't need to pass much complex -if any- data to the view. You could stick the logic to return the view in the route file but that is pretty tightly coupled.
A page that shows complex client and user data
You need to pass client data and user data to the view from the controller. But from what controller? This is the part that is really holding me back.
Because I have a limited number of pages but lots of logic displaying on each page, I was thinking of making a page controller (or something) which would handle the routing. Although I have looked, I have not seen any real mention of this idea anywhere which makes me think I am either reinventing the wheel or have failed to grasp some basic concept in laravel / MVC.
Would the page controller in this case handle all the routing? Would it handle only the pages with 'overlapping' existing controller functionality and the pages that don't fall into the existing controllers? Is a page controller even a good idea?
Some more points that have made me question MVC from this issue
Do controllers need an equivalent model?
Can controllers 'control' other controllers in order to separate logic?
I'll take a shot at a couple of these questions.
Having a PageController or HomeController is very acceptable. Controllers don't have to be linked to a specific model, for instance an AuthController would handle logic for logging in and out but isn't tied to a model, or PasswordController which handles setting/resetting passwords, or a PaymentController that handles billing routes. A controller is just a way to organize logic for related routes in one file. Static basic pages are related routes so a PageController makes sense to me.
Are users tied to a specific client? If so you can arrange your controllers in a nested way so you have a ClientController and a UserController and your routes look something like this:
/clients/{client}/users //list all users for this client
For heavy data formatting it's probably best to use a service provider and use dependency injection to inject it into controllers where you need to use it. This allows you to detach your data manipulation from your controller so you could change it out if needed. Say you are using a software to make charts, and you want to change it out later - you want that formatting logic to be removed from your controller.
I hope I helped in some way... sort of a train of thought here!
I'm wanting to be sure that I am setting things up correctly. On a typical website with 10 pages, would each page have it's own controller with it's own IndexAction and it's own View folder with it's own index.phtml as a view?
Or do you have one controller with multiple Page1Action, Page2Action, etc and have multiple differently named view.phtml pages within view/index folder?
I'm leaning toward the former because then I can have a cleaner controller for each page...
Is there a standard, or is it subjective?
Your sitemap would play a major role in this question. But, in lieu of that, here's a few examples.
Example 1. Flat
/foo
/bar
/baz
You'll probably want to use separate controllers: Foo/IndexController.php, Bar/IndexController.php, and Baz/IndexController.php with each having an indexAction() method to pass information to your view (once again separate).
Example 2. A Little Bit Lower Now
/foo/bar
/baz
You'll only need two controllers: Foo/BarController and Baz/IndexController. If /foo needs a landing page you'll have to throw in a Foo/IndexController.php to be safe. Your actions are still indexAction(). Because you've not gone deep enough to hit that third level, your views are still index.phtml.
Example 3. Straight Line
/foo/bar/baz
You're down to onc controller: Foo/BarController.php. If you need landing pages for /foo and /foo/bar you'll need another controller for /foo (Foo/IndexController) and an indexAction() for both. With /foo/bar/baz you're actually down to a slightly different action now too - bazAction() (inside Foo/BarController.php). Your view is now baz.phtml.
Summary.
The wider the sitemap the more controllers you have and fewer actions. The more narrow the sitemap the fewer the controllers and more actions.
Postscript.
I should also state, this is also contingent on using default routing patterns. If you do something a little more sophisticated in routing patterns, this is all shot out the window. Sometimes we use routes to keep the number of classes manageable. When we have a wide sitemap it's possible to create some custom routes and use __call() within a controller to hand-off view data appropriately. Just another way to skin this cat.
Typically you would create one Controller for a related group of Actions. What related means is subjective.
Very roughly speaking, a group of related Actions operates on the same Model. At least that's a good starting point, but it rarely works out that simply, because few real-world applications consist solely of CRUD operations on each Model.
If you decouple the Model from being simply a data access component, you can more sensibly define a logical grouping of Controller Actions for a Model. A Model is where the majority of your code exists for business logic. Database persistence is just an (optional) internal detail of the Model, to preserve state from request to request. But a Model doesn't necessarily use a database. It could be standalone, or it could be an aggregation of other Model objects.
By default, each Action has its own View script. But this is also just a starting point, because you could use Layouts to make many View scripts share some if their markup in common, and you could use View Helpers and Partials and so on.
I've been using the CodeIgniter framework for PHP and am enjoying it, but I notice that it seems to require a controller for every view. I'm wondering if there is a way to call a specific model from the view itself, rather than route through a controller. I understand that use of a controller is best practice in most cases, especially where the data from the model needs to be modified in some way, but I have cases where I just need to do a strict data pull to the view (which is loaded via ajax), and setting up a controller for that seems superfluous.
Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!
You're fundamentally misunderstanding MVC, at least as implemented in CI.
All URLs on your site (at least those that utilize the CI framework) are mapped to functions (methods) within controllers.
http://myCIsite.com/controller/method[/var1][/var2]...
It doesn't matter whether the URL is accessed via regular HTTP or via AJAX. This is always a one to one mapping. Because of this, you should think of the controller/method combination as the "web page". Do not think of the view as the web page.
Models and views are subordinate to controllers. The controller delegates specific responsibilities to them - database interaction for models, and page output to views.
Because models and views only serve to perform delegated responsibilities, their use is not required in any given controller/method. Help pages, for example, generally have no need to interact with a database, so there is no model utilized by the controller/method combination that serves a given help page. Likewise, form handlers frequently redirect to another page upon completion of processing. As such, there is no view corresponding to the form handler (but there is (likely) a view called from the controller/method in the redirected to page).
Furthermore, models and views do not necessarily correspond on a one to one basis with individual controllers/methods. Any given model can be loaded and used from within several controllers. Similarly, a controller could have a single monolithic view that is used by all methods, or each method could be assigned its own view. (Or, as I just said, a given controller/method could utilize no view at all.)
Finally, CI does not enforce strict MVC separation. You can interact with the database and echo HTML all from within the controller and CI will not complain. Nevertheless, this separation and delegation of responsibility is followed because logically separating the responsibilities makes the code easier to read and helps you follow the DRY principle in your coding.
The fundamental Understanding is that the "web page" corresponds to the controller/method. The view and model, when used, handle delegated responsibilities for the controller/method.
I'm wondering if there is a way to
call a specific model from the view
itself, rather than route through a
controller.
That's not possible as of what I know, the main abstract class of the CI controller imposes restriction to use a controller otherwise you will get a fatal error.
And actually what you say will break the best practice of MVC design pattern. You got to go to model through a controller not view.
I'm a bit confused as to exactly what you're trying to achieve. The controller's value, aside from just being a clean way to handle incoming requests, is to manage the interaction between the models and the views and to determine which views to load. It's also entirely reasonable to load model data directly from your views, but how did you get to your view in the first place?
I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing the context here..
To run a query via Ajax you still need to provide a URL / path in the javascript call. You can not get around the fact that a controller function has to "catch" this call; you can not map a url directly to a model. All you need is 3-4 lines of code in your controller.
Via URI routing you can map a URL to a different controller, so you don't "require a controller for every view". I always create a controller called "ajax" to handle those requests.
A basic ajax call with jquery can be something like this
$('#prod_img').load( "http://domain.com/ajax/get_img", {'color': 'blue', 'url_title': 'bla' } )
You can echo stuff in your controller, so rather than trying to bypass the controller you should be looking into how to do away with the views. This will actually be easy, you can load the db class in the controller just as you can in a model.
But if you really don't want to use MVC perhaps Codeigniter is not the framework for you.
You should read more into the principles of MVC.
Views are strictly for presentation of data, the model shouldn't communicate with views directly.
But still if that's what you want then just pass $this->db from the controller to the view and use it in the view.
Then again, this is NOT a good practice.
Rather than use a full-blown PHP MVC, I'm designing one that will best-fit my uses. I have the basic framework done, and have coded the models and controllers I'll need to run my website.
Now I'm moving onto the Views, and I've encountered a small dilemma. My approach is working fine for me, but for future reference, I want to know if what I'm doing is a bad habit to get into.
What I'm trying to do:
In my View, I'm calling a Model that runs my authentication system, and requesting the login status of a user. I then use that boolean to decide whether to show certain elements within the view, and where to place others.
Should I be designing separate views for each login status, or is this approach fine? However, if I'm going to be implementing this MVC into the work I'm doing for my clients, I need to use the best practices.
Any advice would be appreciated!
Can I call the model from the View?
Yes, you can. As long as you maintain the separation of concerns between M,V and C, you are free to call upon the Model (or the Controller) from the View. Most MVC diagrams show a bidirectional connection at least between View and Model. What you don't want to do though, is place logic/code from the Model (or the controller) into the View and you don't want to modify the model from there.
For example, you might have a widget on your page that aggregates the latest ten blog posts headlines from your favorite blogs on each page of your website. You get the headlines by calling, say MyFavFeeds::getLatest(); in your model. What are your options now?
You could add the code to fetch the headlines into the controller, but that would require you to replicate it in each and every controller action, which is against the DRY principle. Also, the controller's concern is handling user input for specific actions and fetching the headlines on each call is likely not even related to these actions.
If your architecture supports it, you could fetch that data in some sort of preDispatch hook, that is, the headlines get loaded and injected into the View from a plugin or callback. That would be DRY, but a second developer might not be aware of that plugin and accidently overwrite the variable holding the headlines from his controller action. And there might be cases in which you wouldn't want to load the headlines, e.g. when just rendering confirmation pages for form submissions, so you'd have to have mechanism for disabling the plugin then. That's a lot to consider.
You place the call to (not the code of) MyFavFeeds::getLatest() into the View or Layout template or, better, a ViewHelper, that encapsulates the call to your model class and renders the widget. This way you don't have to worry about overwriting any variables or repetition. And when you don't need the headlines on your view, you simply don't include it.
About your other question:
In my View, I'm calling a Model that
runs my authentication system, and
requesting the login status of a user.
I then use that boolean to decide
whether to show certain elements
within the view, and where to place
others.
Authentication is something you will want to do early in the application flow, before any controller actions are called. Thus, you should not run your (entire) authentication system in the View. The actual authentication is not View-related logic. Just requesting the user status after authentication, on the other hand, is okay. For instance, if you want to render a widget showing the user name and giving a login/logout button, it would be fine to do something like
<?php //UserHelper
class UserMenuHelper
{
public function getUserMenu()
{
$link = 'Logout';
if(MyAuth::userHasIdentity()) {
$link = sprintf('Logout %s',
MyAuth::getUsername());
}
return $link;
}
}
If you got larger portions of your GUI to be modified by a User's role, you might want to break your View apart into partial blocks and include them based on the status, instead of writing all the HTML into a View Helper.
If you are only looking to render a navigation based on the user role, have a look at Zend Framework's Zend_Navigation and Zend_Acl to see how they do it.
You can, but you shouldn't. Except for a few extreme cases (and branching your view based on logged-in status is definitely not an "extreme case"), it's pretty much always A Bad Idea to call model stuff from a view.
What you probably want to do in your situation is pass the boolean to the view through the controller. That way, if you change something about the User model, the view doesn't have to know, so long as the controller keeps the behavior the same.
While I only know enough about MVC to get myself in trouble, I've always lived by the fact that unless your view is STRICTLY user interface, then it shouldn't be there.
Also, I've also ran with the idea of thin controllers, fat models.
Going off of these, I'd suggest adding a method to your authentication system model that returns the appropriate view to render and passes that to the view.
Okay, I would really try to keep my Views as logic-free as possible. If you need to switch anything based on e.g. the result of a model method, put a controller in place that delegates the rendering.
Just make sure you follow the basic idea: Do your stuff in the models, Tell your models what to do from your controllers and also tell your views what to show from your controllers.
1) Where does the homepage of your website fit into "controllers"? I've seen some people use a "page" controller to handle static pages like, about, home, contact, etc., but to me this doesn't seem like a good idea. Would creating a distinct controller just for your homepage be a better option? After all, it may need to access multiple models and doesn't really flow well with the whole, one controller per model theory that some people use.
2) If you need a dashboard for multiple types of users, would that be one dashboard controller that would have toggle code dependent upon which user, or would you have say a dashboard action within each controller per user? For example, admin/dashboard, account/dashboard, etc.
3) It seems to me that using the whole simple CRUD example works like a charm when trying to explain controllers, but that once you get past those simple functions, it breaks down and can cause your controllers to get unwieldy. Why do some people choose to create a login controller, when others make a login function in a user controller? One reason I think is that a lot of us come from a page approach background and it's hard to think of controllers as "objects" or "nouns" because pages don't always work that way. Case in point why on earth would you want to create a "pages" controller that would handle pages that really have nothing to do with each other just to have a "container" to fit actions into. Just doesn't seem right to me.
4) Should controllers have more to do with a use case than an "object" that actions can be performed on? For all intensive purposes, you could create a user controller that does every action in your whole app. Or you could create a controller per "area of concern" as some like to say. Or you could create one controller per view if you wanted. There is so much leeway that it makes it tough to figure out a consistent method to use.
Controllers shouldn't be this confusing probably, but for some reason they baffle the hell out of me. Any helpful comments would be greatly appreciated.
1) I use a simple homebrew set of classes for some of my MVC stuff, and it relates controller names to action and view names (it's a Front Controller style, similar to Zend). For a generic web site, let's assume it has a home page, privacy policy, contact page and an about page. I don't really want to make separate controllers for all these things, so I'll stick them inside my IndexController, with function names like actionIndex(), actionPrivacy(), actionContact(), and actionAbout().
To go along with that, inside my Views directory I have a directory of templates associated with each action. By default, any action automatically looks for an associated template, although you can specify one if you wish. So actionPrivacy() would look for a template file at index/privacy.php, actionContact() would look for index/contact.php, etc.
Of course, this relates to the URLs as well. So a url hit to http://www.example.com/index/about would run actionAbout(), which would load the About page template. Since the about page is completely static content, my actionAbout() does absolutely nothing, other than provide a public action for the Front Controller to see and run.
So to answer the core of your question, I do put multiple "pages" into a single controller, and it works fine for my purposes. One model per controller is a theory I don't think I'd try to follow when working with Web MVC, as it seems to fit an application with state much better.
2) For this, I would have multiple controllers. Following the same methods I use above, I would have /admin/dashboard and /account/dashboard as you suggest, although there's no reason they couldn't use the same (or portions of the same) templates.
I suppose if I had a gazillion different kinds of users, I'd make things more generic and only use one controller, and have a mod_rewrite rule to handle the loading. It would probably depend on how functionally complex the dashboard is, and what the account set up is like.
3) I find CRUD functionality difficult to implement directly into any layer of MVC and still have it be clean, flexible and efficient. I like to abstract CRUD functionality out into a service layer that any object may call upon, and have a base object class from which I can extend any objects needing CRUD.
I would suggest utilizing some of the PHP ORM frameworks out there for CRUD. They can do away with a lot of the hassle of getting a nice implementation.
In terms of login controller versus user controller, I suppose it depends on your application domain. With my style of programming, I would tend to think of "logging in" as a simple operation within the domain of a User model, and thusly have a single operation for it inside a user controller. To be more precise, I would have the UserController instantiate a user model and call a login routine on the model. I can't tell you that this is the proper way, because I couldn't say for sure what the proper way is supposed to be. It's a matter of context.
4) You're right about the leeway. You could easily create a controller that handled everything your app/site wanted to do. However, I think you'd agree that this would become a maintenance nightmare. I still get the jibbly-jibblies thinking about my last job at a market research company, where the internal PHP app was done by an overseas team with what I can only assume was little-to-no training. We're talking 10,000 line scripts that handled the whole site. It was impossible to maintain.
So, I'd suggest you break your app/site down into business domain areas, and create controllers based on that. Figure out the core concepts of your app and go from there.
Example
Let's say I had a web site about manatees, because obviously manatees rock. I'd want some normal site pages (about, contact, etc.), user account management, a forum, a picture gallery, and maybe a research document material area (with the latest science about manatees). Pretty simple, and a lot of it would be static, but you can start to see the breakdown.
IndexController - handles about page, privacy policy, generic static content.
UserController - handles account creation, logging in/out, preferences
PictureController - display pictures, handle uploads
ForumController - probably not much, I'd try to integrate an external forum, which would mean I wouldn't need much functionality here.
LibraryController - show lists of recent news and research
HugAManateeController - virtual manatee hugging in real-time over HTTP
That probably gives you at least a basic separation. If you find a controller becoming extremely large, it's probably time to break down the business domain into separate controllers.
It will be different for every project, so a little planning goes a long way towards what kind of architectural structure you'll have.
Web MVC can get very subjective, as it is quite different from a MVC model where your application has state. I try to keep major functionality out of Controllers when dealing with web apps. I like them to instantiate a few objects or models, run a couple of methods based on the action being taken, and collect some View data to pass off to the View once it's done. The simpler the better, and I put the core business logic into the models, which are supposed to be representative of the state of the application.
Hope that helps.