I keep reading that the biggest layer in the MVC pattern should be the model. I've also heard that we should avoid putting logic on the controller layer. However, as my ASP.Net MVC 5 application is getting larger, I see that I'm getting heavy views, heavy controllers, and... extremely tiny models (they're not more than references to my SQL tables).
Yes, I admit, I could never manage to put any logic on my model.
I like the MVC pattern, and my website is working good, but I keep on thinking that I'm surely not doing things right...
Can you show me some useful links about how to write MVC code properly? Rick Anderson's (Microsoft) MVC 5 tutorial is fine, but once again, his models are indeed very tiny...
In my applications I put as much logic as possible in the domain models. On top of that there is an application layer which interacts with the database and domain models to perform application specific operations. The controller actions have as little code as possible and just call methods in the application layer.
In addition I usually have a view model for each view. Any logic that you have making your views "heavy" would go there.
One of the main reasons I try to put as much logic as possible in the domain models is to make unit testing easier. Logic in the application layer usually involves the database, which you will need to mock in order to test. Moving logic to the domain models makes testing easier and makes you code more reusable.
This is a pretty complex issue. I have an in depth blog post on the question if you're interested.
This answer is also pretty close to what I would suggest.
You're missing a service/business layer which should be injected in your controllers though "Dependency Injection". These services do all the heavy lifting.
Having Models without any methods or operations in them is a good thing. You're only storing this info anyway. They basically just get; set; data.
Use extra layer between models and controllers (for example repositories as data access layer).
I strongly recommend using ViewModels-they make code much more organized.
You should Create Some Classes that purely doing business logic and emit ViewModels for MVC view. Controller should respond to actions and the action method delegate the responsibility of getting the model to this business classes.
After some research on this issue, and taking into account some of these answers and comments, I realized that a medium sized MVC project can't rely exclusively on the 3 layered model. As the controller actions become bigger, the developer starts feeling the need of creating a 4th layer: the service layer. Like Gunnar Peipman correctly suggests in the following blog post, "Controller communicates with service layer and gets information about how access code claiming succeeded": http://weblogs.asp.net/gunnarpeipman/archive/2011/06/20/asp-net-mvc-moving-code-from-controller-action-to-service-layer.aspx
Related
By reading at several articles posted here, I get mismatched information about how to properly configure a project.
I am looking for advise about how the pros do it at the enterprise level.
I see different schools of though about this, some people design in a truly N-Tier fashion, others prefer to use EF Code First directly in the MVC application and have FAT models and sort of have one big MVC app with logical separation of concerns, etc.
So for a mid-size project this is my set up and I want to ask for your opinions about it.
MVC application
Models -- Here my models have just what the view needs, validation logic, etc. These models are designed to pass data between the controller and views only.
Controllers -- Call the service layer where business logic lives and gets domain models back if needed. Converts domain models into view models and vice-versa.
Service layer
This is were the business (domain) logic lives.
The service layer is also in charge of communicating with the data layer to perform CRUD operations.
The service layer returns domain models to the controller in the MVC application and also expects domain models when invoked.
Data Repository layer
The data layer is a thin wrapper around EF and performs CRUD operations.
usually I will have a Code First approach where entity models are created for me by EF.
I convert the EF code first models to domain models and return these to the service layer.
The data layer also expect domain models from the service layer that in turn I convert to EF code first models and persist to the DB.
Domain Model layer
These are the domain models that are used and shared thorough the applications layers.
What's best design?
What's expected at the enterprise level?
There's nothing particularly wrong with the approach you've laid out. However, I do see it as overly complex. Your repository layer, in particular, is a totally unnecessary level of abstraction. You could simply just roll the EF stuff into your service layer and call it a day. Having to convert the entity into a domain model and then to a view model, is frankly, a pain. Just map your entity to your view model and back.
The only thing you should really bear in mind is that ASP.NET MVC very loosely follows the MVC pattern. There's no such thing as a true MVC Model, and trying to force something like an entity class into that mold is a huge mistake. Your Model is the combination and interaction of your entity class, view models that represent that class, and the querying logic you tuck away in your service layer.
I would like you to suggest have these layers in your project ----
Entites Layer--
it should contains only all your poco classes in a model folder.Nothing else
Data Layer----
It should contain Db interactions logic.
Also your Dbcontext class should reside in this.
You may use Repository Pattern and unit of work pattern for better seperation of concern.Use dependency injection to resolve dependencies using Unity Container(there are many other container also available).Please have a look on these design pattern and container.there are many articles available on net for this.Simply go through them thoroughly.
Service Layer ----
It should contain only service methods to call into your controller as your controller should not directly talk to data Layer.Its a much better approach and prevent your business logic from being exposed to external attacks.
MVC Layer or UI layer ---
It should contain only the controllers whose work is to call services and business logics inside them.
and View folder where we have all the views to be shown to the end users.
Its a pretty big question.I hope may be u get some idea from this.
I'd like to create a good app in ASP.NET MVC 5 using EF 6 Code first concept. I want it to be well-designed i.e. having generally speaking: Presentation, Logic and Data layers separated. I want it to be testable :)
Here's my idea and some issues related with creating application
Presentation layer: It's my whole MVC - view models(not models), views, controllers
I believe that's validation should be done somewhere else (in my opinion - it's a part of business logic) but it's quite convenient to use attributes from the DataAnnotations namespace in ViewModelds and check validation in controller.
Logic layer: Services - classes with their interfaces to rule business logic.
I put there functions like: AddNewPerson(PersonViewModel Person), SendMessageToPerson(...).
They will use DB context to make their actions (there's a chance that not all of them will be relying on context). There's a direct connection between service and db - I mean the service class have reference do context.
Where should I do mapping between ViewModel and Model? I've heard that service is a bad place for it - so maybe in controllers. I've heard that service should do the work related with db exclusively.
Is it right? Is my picture of service layer is good?
Data layer: I've read about Repository and UoW patterns a lot. There're some articles which suggest that EF6 implements these two things. I don't want to create extra code if there's no need for such a behavior. The question is: am i right to assume that i don't need them?
Here's my flow:
View<->Controllers(using ViewModels)<->Services(using Models)<->DB.
**I'm gonna use DI in my project.
What do you think about my project structure?
There is no reason to use a Unit of Work pattern with Entity Framework if you have no need to create a generic data access mechanism. You would only do this if you were:
using a data access technology that did not natively support a Unit of work pattern (EF does)
Wanted to be able to swap out data providers sometime in the future.. however, this is not as easy as it might seem as it's very hard NOT to introduce dependencies on specific data technologies even when using an Unit of Work (maybe even BECAUSE you are)... or
You need to have a way of unifying disparate data sources into an atomic transaction.
If none of those are the case, you most likely don't need a custom Unit of Work. A Repository, on the other hand can be useful... but with EF6 many of the benefits of a Repository are also available since EF6 provides mocking interfaces for testing. Regardless, stay away from a generic repository unless it's simply an implementation detail of your concrete repositories. Exposing generic repositories to your other layers is a huge abstraction leak...
I always use a Repository/Service/Façade pattern though to create a separation between my data and business (and UI and business for that matter) layers. It provides a convenient way to mock without having to mock your data access itself and it decouples your logic from the specific that are introduced by the Linq layer used by EF (Linq is relatively generic, but there are things that are specific to EF), a façade/repository/server interface decouples that).
In general, you're on the right path... However, let me point out that using Data Attributes on your view models is a good thing. This centralizes your validation on your model, rather than making you put validation logic all over the place.
You're correct that you need validation in your business logic as well, but your mistake is the assumption that you should only have it on the business logic. You need validation at all layers of your application.. And in particular, your UI validation may have different requirements than your business logic validation.
For instance, you may implement creating a new account as a multi-step wizard in your UI, this would require different validation than your business layer because each step has only a subset of the validation of the total object. Or you might require that your mobile interface has different validation requirements from your web site (one might use a captcha, while the other might use a touch based human validation for instance).
Either way, it's important to keep in mind that validation is important both at the client, server, and various layers...
Ok, let’s clarify a few things...
The notion of ViewModel (or the actual wording of ViewModel) is something introduced by Microsoft Martin Fowler. In fact, a ViewModel is nothing more than a simple class.
In reality, your Views are strongly typed to classes. Period. To avoid confusion, the wording ViewModel came up to help people understand that
“this class, will be used by your View”
hence why we call them ViewModel.
In addition, although many books, articles and examples use the word ViewModel, let's not forget that it's nothing more than just a Model.
In fact, did you ever noticed why there is a Models folder inside an MVC application and not a ViewModels folder?
Also, ever noticed how at the top of a View you have #model directive and not # viewmodel directive?
That's because everything could be a model.
By the way, for clarity, you are more than welcomed to delete (or rename) the Models folder and create a new one called ViewModels if that helps.
Regardless of what you do, you’ll ultimately call #model and not #viewmodel at the top of your pages.
Another similar example would be DTO classes. DTO classes are nothing more than regular classes but they are suffixed with DTO to help people (programmers) differentiate between all the other classes (including View Models).
In a recent project I’ve worked on, that notion wasn’t fully grasped by the team so instead of having their Views strongly typed to Models, they would have their Views strongly typed to DTO classes. In theory and in practice everything was working but they soon found out that they had properties such as IsVisible inside their DTO’s when in fact; these kind of properties should belongs to your ViewModel classes since they are used for UI logic.
So far, I haven’t answered your question but I do have a similar post regarding a quick architecture. You can read the post here
Another thing I’d like to point out is that if and only if your Service Layer plans on servicing other things such as a Winform application, Mobile web site, etc...then your Service Layer should not be receiving ViewModels.
Your Service Layer should not have the notion of what is a ViewModel. It should only accept, receive, send, etc... POCO classes.
This means that from your Controller, inside your ActionResult, once the ModelState is Valid, you need to transform your ViewModel into a POCO which in turn, will be sent to the method inside your Service Layer.
In other words, I’d use/install the Automapper nugget package and create some extension methods that would convert a ViewModel into a POCO and vice-versa (POCO into a ViewModel).
This way, your AddNewPerson() method would receive a Person object for its parameter instead of receiving a PersonViewModel parameter.
Remember, this is only valid if and only if your Service Layer plans on servicing other things...
If that's not the case, then feel free to have your Service Layer receive, send, add, etc...ViewModels instead of POCOs. This is up to you and your team.
Remember, there are many ways to skin a cat.
Hope this helps.
This may sound like a stupid or unconstructive question but I'm a fan of not creating so many layers to reduce the amount of code that has to be written and maintained. In a classic scenario, the application logic would be in one class which calls the business layer. However, if the application logic is simple enough, would it be a crime if I were to put application logic in view models? In my case, this would entail calling the business layer in my view models.
yes, it would be a crime and completely destroy the mvc nature of... mvc.
if you have to, put application logic in your controller.
Surely it is not a crime. But it is good to understand why the Application Logic is "Normally" (what is normal) separated from the User Interface layer. The most important reason that is usually given for this separation is the ability to re-use the application logic when you application gets another User Interface implementation. This can be another technology, or another deployment model. Also for maintenance and readability this is often a best practice.
The fact that you are talking about a viewmodel probably means that you are creating a controller class that has no dependency on the view, according to MVC. This is already a separation in some sense from your user interface.
So my opinion: If you have the need / requirement / wish to modernize your user interface in the future or have multiple user interfaces target the same application logic, put some effort in a separate application logic component. Otherwise, you are not commiting a crime by implementing your application logic in your controller.
I'm new to developing web apps using ASP.NET MVC. In fact, I'm rather new to developing web apps, regardless of technology.
Currently, I'm working on a project just to get to know the ASP.NET MVC framework better. When reading on SO and elsewhere on the internet, the consensus seems to be that the views should never deal directly with the business objects (i.e. objects implementing business logic and containing associated attributes). Instead, view models should be used. However, this introduces a couple of issues:
Where do I put my validation code?
I need to add code to map between business objects and view models.
In fact, it seems rather cumbersome and I haven't really seen anyone explaining properly why it's a bad idea passing business objects to the views. Could someone please try to explain this (or point to a good explanation)?
Just a clarification; I'm not looking for examples on how to handle the two issues with view models above but simply an explanation on why I should use view models at all.
Where do I put my validation code?
On the view models you should validate everything that's specific to the application like for example the date should be in en-US format culture, ....
I need to add code to map between business objects and view models.
That's why there are tools such as AutoMapper.
Different problems arise when you use directly your domain models in the views:
The views have specific requirements for displaying the data (localization/globalization) so you either end up with spaghetti code in your views or you put this code on your models so that they become less reusable in other applications because you have polluted them with specific presentation stuff
You have different validation requirements based on the view. Let's take for example the case of Add and Update views. In the Add view the Id property won't be needed and it won't be required because you will be inserting a new item. In the Update view the Id property would be required because you would be updating an existing item. It would be difficult to handle those specific validation rules without view models.
The models might contain properties such as IsAdmin and then I am leaving to your imagination the implication of a controller action with the following signature:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult CreateUser(BusinessObjectUser user) { ... }
assuming that you have hidden this property from the underlying form by not including it.
The business models don't change often whereas the UI could change more often. What if your customer asks you to split your screen in two? The way you present the information changes and the way it is formatted also change. If you use your models directly into the views the spaghetiness of your views becomes worse and worse with every change.
About 60% of the question I am answering on StackOverflow in the asp.net-mvc tag wouldn't have been asked if the OP have used a view model.
Three reasons to why you should use View Models:
Reason 1: Remove logic from your Views
Reason two: Security
Reason three: Loose coupling
Below link may useful:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/223547/Three-reasons-to-why-you-should-use-view-models
First off, allowing the Views to have direct access to the Business Objects in ASP.NET MVC introduces some extra security concerns. ASP.NET MVC does a lot of Model binding for you when a user posts a value back to your controller. This can open you up to various kinds of attacks. By introducing a View Model in between, you can be sure that only the fields you are interesting are bound (because the ViewModel will only contain the fields you care about).
As for the other questions:
Where do I put my validation code?
I use DataAnnotations on my ViewModels directly. That allows me to use the Model validation architecture built in to ASP.NET MVC. If there's any validation beyond that I handle it in my controller.
I need to add code to map between
business objects and view models.
True. But using something like AutoMapper can greatly reduce the amount of boilerplate code that you have to write by hand.
MVC is easy to understand and has very little overhead. But those that have used the Model-View-Controller pattern for some time know that it isn't perfect. Not even close. The Model-View-ViewModel pattern offers an interesting alternative.
It is important to understand that the Model-View-ViewModel pattern extends the Model-View-Controller pattern. It isn't a dramatic paradigm shift if you are used to MVC. Even though the advantages of MVVM are subtle, they are profound.
What are some of the advantages MVVM has over MVC?
Better Separation of Concerns
Improved Testability
Transparent Communication
We have started using MVC framework and now we are bit confused where to write business-logic, in controllers or models?
For the project we are going to use WCF layer as DAL.
People have different views on Model & Controller, and think differently of writing business logic either in 'M' or 'C'.
What is the best practice?
I believe we will be accessing WCF (DAL) service in Model and applying all the business logic or filtering and then Controller accessing the data from Model.
These are my rules:
Controller
Mainly Pageflow . Determines what View is displayed next.
Has access to Services ( ie productService.GetProduct(Model.ProductID) )
Model
I have 2 of them.
POCO-Classes - used by all layers (BLL,DAL)
ViewModel - used by View and Controller for stronly typed views.
View
Hopefully mainly easy HTML
I try to have the layout in a way, that it is possible to have different kind of people work at the project: The frontend guy and the backend guy.
The backend guy will do the Service and Repository.
The Frontend guy will do Controller and Views. He also does ajax.
Try to keep -Business- logic and -Application flow- logic separate. Most people tend to mix those together as -business logic-
Most people keep their business logic in the model and this is considered best practice. Steve Sanderson who has written xVal endorses this method.
As I’ve discussed before, validation rules should go in your domain model, because the role of your model is to represent the workings of your business. It ensures that the rules will be enforced consistently, regardless of whether the UI coder remembers them or not.
Check out his post about xVal that talks about the problem you are discussing.
Do not think that model is supposed to be build from data access logic (wcf service in your case) only. I would recommend you to check out Domain Driven Design, it goes well with MVC. Controllers shouldn't contain any business logic. Controller action method should be ~20 or less lines. But that's just my opinion (made up from countless sources).