are there times you might want to use multiple controllers in mvc?
eg.
/controllers/foo.php
/controllers/bar.php
or
/controllers/foo/baz1.php
/controllers/foo/baz2.php
/controllers/bar/baz1.php
/controllers/bar/baz2.php
could someone give some examples WHEN i might want to do that and some example controller names.
one occasion i thought about might be when you got a main site (for users) and a admin site (for customers).
all feedbacks and suggestions are appreciated
Usually controllers deal with models, which represent corresponding database tables. So if you have tables users and posts, your app will have models User and Post, and therefore controllers Users and Posts. That is typical RoR way, which used in many PHP MVC frameworks. URLs in such application looks as follow:
/controller/action/parameter1/parameter2/...
i.e.
/users/edit/1/
or
/posts/new/
And actions corresponds to controller class methods. Actually I think it became de-facto standart in MVC architecture, becuase it looks natural and logical.
pretty much whenever you have a different task to complete. If you have something that involves handling users, name your controller users.whatever, then name the actions appropriately (create, edit, update, delete, search, etc.). If you have something that solely does searching, name it search.whatever. Etc. An easy way to remember this sort of thing is from the RESTful RFC (sorry, no clue what the actual RFC number is for that one), something along the lines of something.com/noun/verb where noun == the all-encompassing "thing" this controller handles and verb == the action being performed (see above). This is one method at least.
Have a look at the source for Nerd Dinner, http://nerddinner.codeplex.com/, has multiple controllers.
In your application if you are working with User, Employee, Department then you'll define them in 3 classes, right? now make controller for each those classes : UserController, EmployeeController, DepartmentController etc.
example:
User/Add/
User/Edit/1/
User/Delete/1/
Employee/Add/
Employee/Edit/1/
Employee/Delete/1/
Department/Add/
Department/Edit/1/
Department/Delete/1/
Related
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.
My problem is in somewhere between model and controller.Everything works perfect for me when I use MVC just for crud (create, read, update, delete).I have separate models for each database table .I access these models from controller , to crud them . For example , in contacts application,I have actions (create, read, update, delete) in controller(contact) to use model's (contact) methods (create, read, update, delete).
The problem starts when I try to do something more complicated. There are some complex processes which I do not know where should I put them.
For example , in registering user process. I can not just finish this process in user model because , I have to use other models too (sending mails , creating other records for user via other models) and do lots of complex validations via other models.
For example , in some complex searching processes , I have to access lots of models (articles, videos, images etc.)
Or, sometimes , I have to use apis to decide what I will do next or which database model I will use to record data
So where is the place to do this complicated processes. I do not want to do them in controllers , Because sometimes I should use these processes in other controllers too. And I do not want to put these process in models because , I use models as database access layers .May be I am wrong,I want to know . Thank you for your answer .
Just a short comment (no solution) AFAIK that is an eternal question - MVC is just a pattern, and as such, is in theory implementable cleanly. In practise, due to limitations set by available tools (such as programming language library contents and UI component interface design..) you have to make local decisions. The important thing is that you aim to separate these...and not have everything in one mess. I take my comment off the air and am left to see if someone has a "final solution".
For simple tasks I would write action helpers (e.g. sendNewsletter).
For sophistocated tasks I woud create services (eg. email, auth etc.).
In MVC, you should place those things in the model (for reuse reasons for one).
However, in HVMC, you could place them wherever (such as in a controller) and call the controllers from within your application.
I would make your controllers simple.
In many ways the model allows you to offload a lot of the complexity that would otherwise occlude your controller code. Its this division of complexity which will make your code more easily understood, and easier to maintain.
personally I try to keep my models resembling real world objects, not databases tables or rows. It makes it much easier if you have made things speak in more readable terms. A single real world object might involve 5 or 6 database tables... And it would be a rather large hassle to speak with 5 or 6 models, when all you want to do is turn on a switch, or pick a flower, or paint an icon, or send a message.
What's wrong with a controller using multiple models? Isn't the point of MVC to make the model reusable? In your first scenario, it's perfectly fine to send emails and manipulate other model objects from wherever the "register user" controller code is.
In regard to your second scenario, why can't SearchController use ArticleModel, ImageModel and VideoModel? It's fine to have a controller without a model. SearchController doesn't need a SearchModel class, it just uses the other model classes.
I'm trying not to get into a rant about MVC in web apps, but basically, IMHO the controller is just a high-level list of steps to complete an operation. As a rough example, the "register user" controller code should do each of the following steps in roughly one or two lines of code:
Validate the input
If not valid, redisplay the form with an error
Create the new UserModel object from the form input
Insert the new UserModel object into the database
Create/edit whatever other model objects are necessary
Send off an email to the new user
Display a "registration successful" page
How those steps are coded largely depends on whatever framework/architecture you're using.
Keep your controllers clean. For backend processing use Manager classes like MailManager etc..
Currently, I am working on restructuring an existing code base. I'm new to php frameworks, but I do know in general how MVC works.
Right now, there is one controller file, one model file, and thirty view files.
Should every model correspond to a table?
Should every view correspond to an html page?
What about the controller? How can I break this thousand line monster into more organized code.
Thanks.
Should every model correspond to a table?
No. A model is often constructed from data from multiple sources. Don't think in terms of tying it to your physical database structure even though there will probably end up being lots of similarity.
Should every view correspond to an html page?
Not to sound trite, but every view should correspond to a view. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "page".
Perhaps an example would be useful. Imagine a user registration page. The model is User and might contain fields such as:
Title
Given names
Surname
Date of Birth
Username
Address(es)
Email address
Phone number(s)
etc
Now, that data may be in multiple tables. For example: Party, Person, Contact and Address.
There will probably be several views:
About page
Form page (used for new registration and possibly editing details as well as errors);
Success page;
Failure page.
Typically all of this will be handled by a single controller as all the processes are inter-related.
Every model should correspond to a logical data object - which should generally predominantly be stored in one table (often with foreign keys into other tables, since models generally need to reference other models).
Every view should correspond to a logical way of viewing your data (e.g. on stackoverflow, there is hopefully a view for the list of badges pages, a view for the list of tags pages etc).
Every controller should correspond to a logical grouping of views, which should not be too big (where too big is the line where the file is becoming unmanageable - if you've got 30 views, you can hopefully find a logical way to group them into say 3 controllers).
What about the controller? How can I
break this thousand line monster into
more organized code.
Have a look at CakePHP framework and how it solves the problem of large models, controllers, and numerous views. I find it quite elegant. Complex models can have behaviours. Large controllers can be broken into components. And numerous views are grouped with layouts, while having common bits separated into elements. It might sound complicated and scary at first, but once you try to use it, it really falls into place.
Should every model correspond to a
table?
It doesn't have to but it often will depending on the complexity of your business logic.
Since you're refactoring an existing application, think about how the model is used by the other layers. In MVC, the model is at the bottom of the dependency stack.
How will the view access the model? How will the controller modify it? How will the model be populated?
Should every view correspond to an
html page?
Again, it doesn't have to but it often will.
What about the controller? How can I
break this thousand line monster into
more organized code.
A common strategy is using the front controller pattern. The front controller deals with HTTP requests, application initialisation and site-wide logic (just as your thousand line monster is currently doing) - but then it delegates to more specialised controllers.
These specialised controllers could be grouped by the models it uses, site page structure, or anything else that seems logical. They then interact with the model and select a view to display.
Finally, +1 to frameworks as Leonid suggested. Even if you don't end up using one, there are some great implementations of controller patterns out there.
Hope that helps.
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.
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