I am currently working on a little application:
The structure follows in some way the MVC pattern.
For short it has the basic things, Models, Controllers etc.
Now I am sitting here and do not know whether :
1.
The SQL database is only managed by a model through methods the programmer gives him like: "Hey we have name record so we need a getName() method".
OR
2.
The model dynamically creates the whole database and methods, using a XML file, with which even a non-programmer can design a database.
And should the model class check every/a single request whether it is a valid request e.g. getName() won't work on the houses_tbl, and if it is not valid it does not perform the query, and sends back an error message instead?
I have absolutely no idea how to handle my model class, which structure it should follow and how much the programmer should have to put into a new model so it works as he wants it to work.
Major points:
perfomance (which way saves the most perfomance)
KISS (which way is simple enough, so a second team mate can understand my logic)
extendability (can I extend the structure)
Check these Data Source Architectural Patterns: Table Data Gateway, Row Data Gateway, Active Record, Data Mapper. For code examples to these patterns in PHP, you could check Zend_DB_*.
Which pattern you should pick depends on your application. If you are doing a simple CRUD application, you might want to use Row Data Gateway. If you are building an application with a lot of business logic from a certain domain, you will likely pick a different one.
Just remember that the M in MVC is not just the Persistence layer. The model is the heart of your application. Controller and View are just an end to your application. Further reading by Rob Allen and Matthew Weier O'Phinney.
As for your major points, I suggest to just stick to general established practises. UnitTest your code, write meaningful code and document it, favor aggregation over composition, capsule and separate concerns, code against an interface, refactor, etc.
Why not statically create the objects etc. during development from the database. i.e. use some Object-Relational-Mapping ?
That way you create your Person object from (say) the database schema. It creates a getName() accessor, and the rest of your code compiles against that. If you remove/rename the name field, then the generated code changes and consequently stuff doesn't compile. Catching these errors early will save a lot of grief.
This question details some PHP/ORM options. I confess I've not checked these to see if they're entirely what you want, but hopefully they should point you in the right direction.
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.
The last few days, I have extensively read books and web pages about OOP and MVC in PHP, so that I can become a better programmer. I've come upon a little problem in my understanding of MVC:
Where do I put a mysql_query?
Should I put it in the controller and call a method on a model that returns data based on the provided query? Or should I put it in the model itself? Are both of the options I'm providing total garbage?
Materials on the subject of MVC
You could have listed the books you were reading, because most (if not all) php books, which touch on MVC, are wrong.
If you want to become a better developer, i would recommend for you to start with article by Marting Fowler - GUI Architectures. Followed by book from same author - "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture". Then the next step would be for you to research SOLID principles and understand how to write code which follows Law of Demeter. This should cover the basics =]
Can I use MVC with PHP ?
Not really. At least not the classical MVC as it was defined for Smalltalk.
Instead in PHP you have 4 other patterns which aim for the same goal: MVC Model2, MVP, MVVM and HMVC. Again, I am too lazy to write about differences one more time, so I'll just link to an old comment of mine.
What is Model ?
First thing you must understand is that Model in MVC is not a class or an object. It is a layer which contains multitude of classes. Basically model layer is all of the layers combined (though, the second layer there should be called "Domain Object Layer", because it contains "Domain Model Objects"). If you care to read quick summary on what is contained in each part of Model layer, you can try reading this old comment (skip to "side note" section).
The image is taken from Service Layer article on Fowler's site.
What does the Controllers do ?
Controller has one major responsibilities in MVC (I'm gonna talk about Model2 implementation here):
Execute commands on structures from model layer (services or domain objects), which change the state of said structures.
It usually have a secondary responsibility: to bind (or otherwise pass) structures from Model layer to the View, but it becomes a questionable practice, if you follow SRP
Where do I put SQL related code ?
The storage and retrieval of information is handled at the Data Source Layer, and is usually implemented as DataMapper (do not confuse with ORMs, which abuse that name).
Here is how a simplified use of it would look like:
$mapper = $this->mapperFactory->build(Model\Mappers\User::class);
$user = $this->entityFactory->build(Model\Entities\User::class);
$user->setId(42);
$mapper->fetch($user);
if ($user->isBanned() && $user->hasBannExpired()){
$user->setStatus(Model\Mappers\User::STATUS_ACTIVE);
}
$mapper->store($user);
As you see, at no point the Domain Object is even aware, that the information from it was stored. And neither it cases about where you put the data. It could be stored in MySQL or PostgreSQL or some noSQL database. Or maybe pushed to remote REST API. Or maybe the mapper was a mock for testing. All you would need to do, to replace the mapper, is provide this method with different factory.
Also, please see these related posts:
understanding MVC Views in PHP
testable Controllers with dependencies
how should services communicate between each other?
MVC for advanced PHP developers
Model and Entity Classes represents the data and the logic of an application, what many calls business logic. Usually, it’s responsible for:
Storing, deleting, updating the application data. Generally it includes the database operations, but implementing the same operations invoking external web services or APIs is not an unusual at all.
encapsulating the application logic. This is the layer that
should implement all the logic of the application
Here is the MVC Sequence Diagram which shows the flow during a http request:
In this case Model is the best place to implement the code realted to access database.
The model contains the domain objects or data structures that represent the application's state. [wikipedia]. So the model would be the place to make the database call.
In the 'classic' (lack of a better word atm) MVC pattern the view would get the current state from the model.
Don't make the mistake by saying that the model is for accessing the database. It's more than just accessing the database.
For one, don't use mysql_query() and family; they're being deprecated, so consider also learning about PDO and/or mysqli.
The model takes care of data handling; it provides an interface to the controller by which it retrieves and/or stores information. So this would be a primary place where database actions take place.
Update
To answer a question asked by the OP in the comments: "one generic model for the whole db or a model for each table/action?"
Models are meant to abstract away individual tables (although there are models that exclusively handle a single table); for instance, instead of asking for all articles and then query the usernames for the authors you would have one function like this:
function getArticles()
{
// query article table and join with user table to get username
}
How many models you will create largely depends on how big the project is and how inter-related the data is. If you can identify independent groups of data, it's likely that you'd create a model for each group; but this is no hard & fast rule.
Data manipulation can be part of the same model, unless you want a clear separation between read-only and write-only models (I wouldn't know of a situation that warrants this, but who knows).
To go even further, your model should not contain the database access code. This belongs to another layer outside the Model/View/Controller: this is called the persistence layer, which can be implemented using an Object-Relational Mapper such as the popular Doctrine 2 for PHP.
This way, you never touch any (my)SQL code. The persistence layer takes care of this for you.
I really advise you to have a look at a Doctrine tutorial, this is a really professional way to create your applications.
Instead of working with raw data loaded from the database, you create objects that hold your data, and the behavior associated with it.
For example, you might have a User class, such as:
class User
{
protected $id;
protected $name;
protected $privileges;
public function setName($name) { ... }
public function getName() { ... }
public function addPrivilege(Privilege $privilege) { ... }
public function getPrivileges() { ... }
}
You controller will only interact with objects:
class UserController
{
public function testAction()
{
// ...
$user = $em->getRepository('User')->find(123); // load User with id 123
$user->setName('John'); // work with your objects,
echo $user->getName(); // and don't worry about the db!
$em->flush(); // persist your changes
}
}
Behind the scenes, the ORM takes care of all the low-level work of issuing a SELECT query, instantiating your object, detecting modifications to your object, and issuing the necessary UPDATE statement!
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.
Now that I have read an awfull lot of posts, articles, questions and answers on OOP, MVC and design patterns, I still have questions on what is the best way to build what i want to build.
My little framework is build in an MVC fashion. It uses smarty as the viewer and I have a class set up as the controller that is called from the url.
Now where I think I get lost is in the model part. I might be mixing models and classes/objects to much (or to little).
Anyway an example. When the aim is to get a list of users that reside in my database:
the application is called by e.g. "users/list" The controller then runs the function list, that opens an instance of a class "user" and requests that class to retrieve a list from the table. once returned to the controller, the controller pushes it to the viewer by assigning the result set (an array) to the template and setting the template.
The user would then click on a line in the table that would tell the controler to start "user/edit" for example - which would in return create a form and fill that with the user data for me to edit.
so far so good.
right now i have all of that combined in one user class - so that class would have a function create, getMeAListOfUsers, update etc and properties like hairType and noseSize.
But proper oop design would want me to seperate "user" (with properties like, login name, big nose, curly hair) from "getme a list of users" what would feel more like a "user manager class".
If I would implement a user manager class, how should that look like then? should it be an object (can't really compare it to a real world thing) or should it be an class with just public functions so that it more or less looks like a set of functions.
Should it return an array of found records (like: array([0]=>array("firstname"=>"dirk", "lastname"=>"diggler")) or should it return an array of objects.
All of that is still a bit confusing to me, and I wonder if anyone can give me a little insight on how to do approach this the best way.
The level of abstraction you need for your processing and data (Business Logic) depends on your needs. For example for an application with Transaction Scripts (which probably is the case with your design), the class you describe that fetches and updates the data from the database sounds valid to me.
You can generalize things a bit more by using a Table Data Gateway, Row Data Gateway or Active Record even.
If you get the feeling that you then duplicate a lot of code in your transaction scripts, you might want to create your own Domain Model with a Data Mapper. However, I would not just blindly do this from the beginning because this needs much more code to get started. Also it's not wise to write a Data Mapper on your own but to use an existing component for that. Doctrine is such a component in PHP.
Another existing ORM (Object Relational Mapper) component is Propel which provides Active Records.
If you're just looking for a quick way to query your database, you might find NotORM inspiring.
You can find the Patterns listed in italics in
http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/index.html
which lists all patterns in the book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture.
I'm not an expert at this but have recently done pretty much exactly the same thing. The way I set it up is that I have one class for several rows (Users) and one class for one row (User). The "several rows class" is basically just a collection of (static) functions and they are used to retrieve row(s) from a table, like so:
$fiveLatestUsers = Users::getByDate(5);
And that returns an array of User objects. Each User object then has methods for retrieving the fields in the table (like $user->getUsername() or $user->getEmail() etc). I used to just return an associative array but then you run into occasions where you want to modify the data before it is returned and that's where having a class with methods for each field makes a lot of sense.
Edit: The User object also have methods for updating and deleting the current row;
$user->setUsername('Gandalf');
$user->save();
$user->delete();
Another alternative to Doctrine and Propel is PHP Activerecords.
Doctrine and Propel are really mighty beasts. If you are doing a smaller project, I think you are better off with something lighter.
Also, when talking about third-party solutions there are a lot of MVC frameworks for PHP like: Kohana, Codeigniter, CakePHP, Zend (of course)...
All of them have their own ORM implementations, usually lighter alternatives.
For Kohana framework there is also Auto modeler which is supposedly very lightweight.
Personally I'm using Doctrine, but its a huge project. If I was doing something smaller I'd sooner go with a lighter alternative.
I've been reading several articles on MVC and had a few questions I was hoping someone could possibly assist me in answering.
Firstly if MODEL is a representation of the data and a means in which to manipulate that data, then a Data Access Object (DAO) with a certain level of abstraction using a common interface should be sufficient for most task should it not?
To further elaborate on this point, say most of my development is done with MySQL as the underlying storage mechanism for my data, if I avoided vendor specific functions -- (i.e. UNIX_TIMESTAMP) -- in the construction of my SQL statements and used a abstract DB object that has a common interface moving between MySQL and maybe PostgreSQL, or MySQL and SQLite should be a simple process.
Here's what I'm getting at some task, are handled by a single CONTROLLER -- (i.e. UserRegistration) and rather that creating a MODEL for that task, I can get an instance of the db object -- (i.e. DB::getInstance()) -- then make the necessary db calls to INSERT a new user. Why with such a simple task would I create a new MODEL?
In some of the examples I've seen a MODEL is created, and within that MODEL there's a SELECT statement that fetches x number of orders from the order table and returns an array. Why do this, if in your CONTROLLER your creating another loop to iterate over that array and assign it to the VIEW; ex. 1?
ex. 1: foreach ($list as $order) { $this->view->set('order', $order); }
I guess one could modify the return so something like this is possibly; ex. 2.
ex. 2: while ($order = $this->model->getOrders(10)) { $this->view->set('order', $order); }
I guess my argument is that why create a model when you can simply make the necessary db calls from within your CONTROLLER, assuming your using a DB object with common interface to access your data, as I suspect most of websites are using. Yes I don't expect this is practical for all task, but again when most of what's being done is simple enough to not necessarily warrant a separate MODEL.
As it stands right now a user makes a request 'www.mysite.com/Controller/action/args1/args2', the front controller (I call it router) passes off to Controller (class) and within that controller a certain action (method) is called and from there the appropriate VIEW is created and then output.
So I guess you're wondering whether the added complexity of a model layer -on top- of a Database Access Object is the way you want to go. In my experience, simplicity trumps any other concern, so I would suggest that if you see a clear situation where it's simpler to completely go without a Model and have the data access occur in the equivalent of a controller, then you should go with that.
However, there are still other potential benefits to having an MVC separation:
No SQL at all in the controller: Maybe you decide to gather your data from a source other than a database (an array in the session? A mock object for testing? a file? just something else), or your database schema changes and you have to look for all the places that your code has to change, you could look through just the models.
Seperation of skillsets: Maybe someone on your team is great at complex SQL queries, but not great at dealing with the php side. Then the more separated the code is, the more people can play to their strengths (even more so when it comes to the html/css/javascript side of things).
Conceptual object that represents a block of data: As Steven said, there's a difference in the benefits you get from being database agnostic (so you can switch between mysql and postgresql if need be) and being schema agnostic (so you have an object full of data that fits together well, even if it came from different relational tables). When you have a model that represents a good block of data, you should be able to reuse that model in more than one place (e.g. a person model could be used in logins and when displaying a personnel list).
I certainly think that the ideals of separation of the tasks of MVC are very useful. But over time I've come to think that alternate styles, like keeping that MVC-like separation with a functional programming style, may be easier to deal with in php than a full blown OOP MVC system.
I found this great article that addressed most of my questions. In case anyone else had similar questions or is interested in reading this article. You can find it here http://blog.astrumfutura.com/archives/373-The-M-in-MVC-Why-Models-are-Misunderstood-and-Unappreciated.html.
The idea behind MVC is to have a clean separation between your logic. So your view is just your output, and your controller is a way of interacting with your models and using your models to get the necessary data to give to the necessary views. But all the work of actually getting data will go on your model.
If you think of your User model as an actual person and not a piece of data. If you want to know that persons name is it easier to call up a central office on the phone (the database) and request the name or to just ask the person, "what is your name?" That's one of the ideas behind the model. In a most simplistic way you can view your models as real living things and the methods you attach to them allow your controllers to ask those living things a series of questions (IE - can you view this page? are you logged in? what type of image are you? are you published? when were you last modified?). Your controller should be dumb and your model should be smart.
The other idea is to keep your SQL work in one central location, in this case your models. So that you don't have errant SQL floating around your controllers and (worst case scenario) your views.