I made my first project with ZF, used the Zend_Tool component.
For the index controller a created some actions, and they work well.
But my question is, when do you create a new controller?
thanks!
As the Controller is a crucial part of the MVC pattern, I suggest reading up a bit on
this.
In a nutshell:
The controller receives input and initiates a response by making calls on model objects.
So when to create a new controller totally depends on your application. Often, there is one controller per database table in your model. The controller usually would allow for handling CRUD requests and delegating them to your model to process them.
Check out
http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/learning.quickstart.intro.html
http://akrabat.com/zend-framework-tutorial/
http://www.survivethedeepend.com/zendframeworkbook/en/1.0
When you want to have a different page. Are you using different logic or trying to fulfil a completely different task?
It should be quite clear to you when you want to create a new Controller, it is because you are doing something completely different.
Related
I'm developing a laravel app and would like to know some best practices.
As an example, I'm thinking about creating multiple controllers instead of writing more than 10 methods in a single controller.
I would like to know what are or( if there are any ) advantages other than code readability.
My main concern is that how does it affect when there are more files to compile by the PHP compiler.
Since I'm using a framework is it going to compile all the files or only the file requested by web.php
Some insight would be great!
If the 10 methods you have in a controller are all related, then keep them in that controller. If you have a FruitController with methods related to performing actions on types of Fruit, but you also include some methods for performing actions on Vegetables, move the Vegetable methods to a new controller.
Consider encapsulation when composing your files.
In general, avoid making files for the sake of it. If it makes sense to create a new file as the logic you intend to place inside that file has no other existing home, then fine, otherwise add your logic to an existing file.
I'm not sure splitting related code into separate files increases readability, large files can be readable as long as the code is well formatted and consistent (amongst other things). Check out this book on clean code if you're interested.
What you will get though is a decrease in productivity and maintainability by having to flick through and maintain several files that are all related.
There is no advantage of using multiple controllers instead of one controller, as long as it is related to one single model. You may say it increases readability, but this is better to unify them in one single controller which is associated with your model and try to pick expressive names for the methods. The main idea is to create one single controller associated with each of your models. Feel free to add as much as methods possible into your models to talk to your database and make queries and call those methods in the associated controller. Then you can trigger those controllers through the web.php routes to handle your data and pass them to the view layer.
When you create separate controller for particular functionality this is more readable for old and new developer.
Also please check this link
From laravel:
Instead of defining all of your request handling logic as Closures in route files, you
may wish to organize this behavior using Controller classes. Controllers can group
related request handling logic into a single class. Controllers are stored in the
app/Http/Controllers directory.
I recommend that you divide your logic into different controllers. For example you can place all your user logic into one controller userController.php:
Create User
Edit User
Delete User
Then create another controller to manage the logic for another controller like sending emails etc. In this way your logic is more organized, easy to work with and you can find and update your methods easier.
I'm currently using Symfony2 and and I'm trying to divide my code into different controller (like an Ajax Controller, a User Controller etc...) but I don't really know when I should use a create a new One.
For example my DefaultController is starting to be quite big (~800 lines) and I was wondering if having a too long controller could impact the website's performance? (Longer loading time...)
And, if it does, when should I split the controller into smaller ones ?
I would say that you should group your actions by which operate on the same data (entities) or operate within a well defined responsibility. E.g. UserController for users, PostController for blog posts, etc. This means that if you want to create an action which role is different than the rest of the actions, put it in a separate controller.
Symfony is caching almost everything so I don't think that huge controllers would cause an impact to the perfomance but if you have a thousands lines long controller, I'm not sure that it does only one thing.
The controller's size can be a warning sign too for the misplaced queries and business logic. You should separate QueryBuilder calls into Repository classes and other logic to services and event handlers. You can save more lines by using annotations instead of PHP code.
I think it's a good idea to start with a controller for each relevant model, with a CRUD structure.
Of course it depends on your needs, but if you have a model "Post", you probably will need a PostController with CRUD routes and methods, like : index (/posts), new, update, create, delete...
Depending what you need you can delete or add some method relative to a
Post from this base structure.
Try to detect what is realy relative to a specific model in your defaultController and create a controller for it.
Good luck.
What #riska and #Yoann said all holds true.
In addition, I prefer not to create separate controller if I'm sure that it hold only that one method. In that case, I just put it into DefaultController.
From my experience, controllers are the part of UI layer. If you care a lot about keeping your controllers small, let me give you the best scenario you can make what a controller must do:
1.Call the appropriate service
2.Return the response
That is 2 lines of code for each controller action, or you can even make it in one line.
Like person above said, controllers are usually separated by what type of entities / services they operate on. If you for example have an entity - lets say User, the following actions are most likely to be in there: createAction, editAction, removeAction, registerAction, activateAction, loginAction, logoutAction and so on...
It does not have any impact on performance if your controllers are thin or fat. The code will be executed in the similar flow, and all classes are being cached in the production environment.
I'm thinking of re-working my MVC before I get to far along with it. At the moment it uses a sinle controller which takes the user input and determines the model. The model has maby differ methods which I call actions, because one is called automatically. The model loads its view file, which again holds many different methods. The model can set properties which can be used in the view. Then the controller calls th template classwhich parses the output for display.
Is this the bst way to do it?
Or should each different part (news, contact, about) have its own controller, which loads a specific model and view. Essentially, instead of grouping methods into a single file, it uses multipe files.
I'm kind of lost as to how I should do it.
Cheers
Start using a MVC that works and is well-known like in Symfony or Cake. From that you will decide:
what do to in your own, knowing the best practices;
to drop your own if you feel like you can save time by using theses.
If you are thinking of advancing your own MVC model, like #e-satis have said, you will need to experience what is happening in already developed systems. However, as based on my experience in designing MVC model and determining what is there in opensource community, I stick back to my own MVC for two good reasons. One reason is the flexibility of customization and the other is own MVC privacy.
I used the following approach for MVC design pattern.
A Router.php file identifying user-request urls. This router will be able to fetch controllers and include the file and call the controller default method.
The loaded controller is also able to load other controllers if required to function. This is done using a global method, where all controller Class will extend to a MainController Class which is able to call to other controllers.
I do use a global registry to set and get variables from one controller to the other.
The Models are used to get the Data from Table, and most of my Models will represent Database functions which includes CRUD (Create Read Update Delete). So that a controller can easily manipulate database table data using a model.
Naming conventions in all controller, models, and views is also important, if you want to system to be more intelligent to identify the required action knowing the file name.
I use the Views separately for each type of controller. And these views will be sent to a Master Template View file.
Same as models, the controller will be able to set Views to Master View.
There are other customizations which you can do, like applying security methods before calling a class, or after calling a class/controller/model/view etc.
This is done by the MainController, which it will always look into a folder with autoload class which states what files should be loaded before and after of different actions during the process of building the content and delivering the output.
MVC is not a small scale idea, but it is a design idea which can always be developed. There are so many PHP MVC open source frameworks to be found if you know how to search the major search engines like google.com
But I do advice you that, MVC is not a good solution if you are simply developing a small dynamic website, as it will consume more time in developing compared to developing small websites. MVC is ideal, if you have business logic and needs system automation in order to avoid most routine tasks of developing, and like that I would say MVC is most ideal for larger applications.
The model loads its view file
The Controller should act as a Mediator between the Model and the View.
The Model shouldn't be aware of the way the view renders it, and also the View shouldn't be aware of any kind of logic of the Model.
In theory, if your MVC is well structured, you should be able to represent the same Model with different types of Views (HTML, XML, JSON for example).
Build FrontController which parses request uri and decides which controller to load and which method to run. With .htaccess rewrite all request to index.php
//index.php
class FrontController{
function run(){
//parse request uri here /comment/new
//load controller comment
//run controllers method new and pass some request attributes
}
}
// ../controllers/comment.php
class Controller_Comment extends Controller{
function new($request){
//do stuff here
}
}
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.
is it usual to use controllers in models?
then you have to include the controller in the model?
Models should not be using controllers.
To clarify, using the MVC pattern, the user communicates with the controller which manipulates the model which dispatches its results to the view back to the user.
Image taken from The Model-View-Controller (MVC) Design Pattern for PHP
Update to Doug's response:
The most logical way to explain how the components work is by starting from the model, then going through the controller, and finally reaching the view. And "MCV" would not have been nearly as appealing a name to the ear as "MVC."
Taken from Chapter 1 of Beginning ASP.NET MVC 1.0 by Simone Chiaretta and Keyvan Nayyeri.
No it is not common. You should never have to use your controllers from your model.
If you feel the need to, it probably means code that is currently in your controller should live in a shared library, or actually be in the model to begin with.
It is of course proper to use a model from a controller.
Update
Code that doesn't directly relate to a specific database table/record (model), or doesn't directly respond to a user's action (controller), would be a good candidate for a utilities or library file.
This is more normal, and where you load it depends on if you are using a framework or not. If it just your custom app, you can just do a require_once in your model and use the utility methods from there.