I was just curious as to what the rule of thumb was for models. Generally, I use them only for situations where I need to add/edit or update database entries for an object.
However, I'm building an app at the moment that has a "config" table which holds various data, such as last updated, which will control when certain features in the app should be displayed. In this instance, I will mostly need to retrieve data from the config table. Is it worth putting these config methods in model?
I'm interested to hear how more experienced coders approach the MVC methodology in CI - example pseudo methods (e.g., what methods relating to the same object you'd use in the model and the controller) would be most helpful.
"Is it worth putting these config methods in model?"
yes, absolutely, if only to prevent you from writing the same getters and setters in every controller that has deal with your table of configuration settings. Write your getters and setters once (ideally in a generalized way in MY_Model) and write your complex queries once in the model, then call them in as many libraries, controllers, or views as desired.
By employing models you are able to code to an interface and not an implementation.
Meaning there is a benefit of abstracting your model from your controller in that your controllers can be agnostic as to what ways your data is stored. You can decided to switch your data from database to xml to ini files as long as the models methods consistently offer up results in the format the controller expects. In short, when you switch your data source, you'd need only update your model's internal methods and not your controllers.
Lastly, it is permissible by the rules of MVC, I believe, to allow views to request data directly from models. To this end you may build CodeIgniter helpers for use in views that use the model to retrieve configuration settings, in much the same way that the native config_item() common function works.
You separate the M from the V&C for many of the same reasons that you separate your CSS from your HTML - abstraction, ease of reuse and lighter, more readable code.
Also note that with other MVC platforms, you wouldn't have a choice. Just because you can ignore the methodology (in CI) doesn't mean that you should do so.
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.
Shouldn't models just describe data that will be passed from a controller to a view? Doesn't that make models unnecessary in weakly typed languages? In PHP, they are doing DB work in models, but isn't that wrong? As I see it, models are just unnecessary in weakly typed languages...
There are some misconceptions about the term model. Microsoft's MVC3 framework has the concept of a view-model, which is simply the data you use to render your views. This isn't however what the M stands for exactly in MVC. The model includes your business entities. We have thin controllers and fat models, but very thin view models. Our controllers make calls to services that perform business logic, and the controllers never do this logic themselves. We then translate our business entities (our data models) and convert them into a lightweight view model, which can be used for rendering a view.
So to answer your question
Shouldn't model just describe data that will be passed from controller to view?
Then perhaps what you are really asking is aren't view-models unnecessary? I'm not sure why you think this. View model + view makes the result. In PHP it can be helpful to define a class with easily accessible properties on it. This is just sensible for clarifying your expectations and prevents you from calling methods with hideously long sets or arguments. In JavaScript there is no need to define a view model as such, you just push the properties onto a new object and pass it along with your view to your view rendering logic. This is more a reflection of the OO pattern these languages use and not the fact that they are weakly typed.
If you are asking if model is unnecessary, then you have missed the purpose of the MVC architecture. A big part of MVC is that you separate your concerns. Why apply any architecture to your code? I am sure you can find a better explanation of the motivation behind MVC than I can give you.
A model is a useful conceptual tool, even if it's not strictly necessary in PHP to separate it from the DB code e.g. you can have a data object associated with each table that encapsulates some business logic, or define a set of business entities that aggregate the data across tables into domain-specific objects that the controllers can then use, or just have one monster DB object that has all the access functions and returns the entities. This has definite advantages over having DB code directly in use by the controllers:
If you are defining complex data structures that run across DB tables, you don't want to do that in controller code due to the risk of duplication - far better to have a single definition that enforces consistency across the system. Although this can introduce dependencies, having one function/object that defines that data makes it easy to find out where the data is used so you can fix things.
Third party maintenance is far easier if there's one place to go to where all the data structure definitions are found.
It makes unit testing easier if you can swap out the whole model or parts of it and replace it with mock object(s) that will provide test data
It makes controllers lighter and therefore more readable and maintainable
So you could argue that it's not necessary, but it helps a lot.
I've always seen models as a tool to provide data. That means that your controller doesn't ever have to worry about the data source, and if you want to switch from using a database to XML files then you only have to swap out your model.
So long as you have some data provider abstraction. Some Models will do low level validation (tightly coupled to the storage engine - null checks etc) but the controller "should" do all of the business logic/validation.
I personally have a thin struct like class that is mapped to each table (all implementing IDataStruct). This struct, or a collection thereof, is the only thing that moves between the DomainObject and the DataProvider. I can then enforce via my interface what datastruct I should be receiving. This is not a silver bullet but I have found it to work well (Makes things like caching and unit testing quite easy)
I hope this hasn't confused the issue.
Ok, it's my fault. I've never ever learned programming at a school and that's why i'm always ending up in a spaghetti code. I've always curious about different patterns and tried to understand them at least in a basic level.
MVC is my worst fear and i think i'll be never able to use it's advantages because of i don't understand it's fundamentals.
My actual question/problem looks like:
The front controller calls a 'Core' class which is doing some initialization then it calls the actual controller with the correct action/parameters. The controllers always extending the 'Core' class so i can acces it's variables, etc. They're working nicely together but here comes my real problem.
Some kind of methods (getting a database entry in most of the cases) are required in different cases. (e.g. a product needs it's manufacturer)
In this scenario i have two (bad) choices:
Inject the required method into the 'Core' class so it's getting bloated over time
Inject the required method into the actually called controller so i will end up a redundant codebase
I see a lot of possible problems in my approach:
Controllers are always extending 'Core' class
'Core' controller holds the database object so without it i cannot access my Db
Database functions (e.g. getting a product) are in the controllers but i cannot access them because they're always calling 'Core' first (extending problem again)
Please tell me:
Where is the biggest problem in my approach and where can i correct it?
Note:
Please don't treat this as a general question, i think this is an answerable thing. If you need some clarification, please ask for it and i'll try to lighten up things.
Thanks for your precious time, fabrik
Your data is represented to your Controller and View through the Model. The Model may be supported by a Repository but depending on the overhead you might want to provide your database access in your Model. The data architecture should be similar to this:
(Repository<===>)Model<===>Controller--->View
Your biggest problem is having the "Core" class, get rid of it asap.
By the way, the FrontController is not the only way to do things MVC things either.
Your second problem is that controller deals with database, it shouldn't. I suggest you use some abstract data layer, which you use only in your models. And controller should deal only with models, it shouldn't care how models get their data persisted and fetched.
Look into using a DI framework to automatically inject an instance of a repository into your controllers (or even better, a proxy class). Try to keep business logic outside of your controllers, but rather, refector it out into a helper or proxy class.
I tend to split my logic up into views => controllers (just for interaction between business later and view) => business logic => models (DTOs) => low-level data access at a minimum.
Also, if you need common helper functionality in your views, perhaps create several extensions to help.
I've starting using Codeigniter for a project recently (few months ago) but its getting a little out of hand with a bunch of models that need to interact with each other and I was wondering if I should be creating a library instead?
In my case, I have a user action that happens when you win a game and it would get logged in my user_model but I also want it to get put in my events_model?
Should something like this that affects multiple models become a library?
I know it should NOT be in the controller because I'd have to reuse this trigger in multiple controllers (might not make sense for the provided example but does for my application).
Libraries are meant to provide reusable functionality for your application, while models in the MVC architecture represent the data logic in or the actual data used by your application.
So to answer your question, you can implement a library that handles updating of multiple models. Just ensure that things like database inserts are handled by your models themselves, as that is business logic more than application logic.
You could leave your models modularised as they are and write your logic in libraries, this way you can access mutilple models though a single function in a library, without making your controllers untidy by loading multiple models and having none-interface orientated logic mingled in with interface logic.
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