This is the first time I'm doing a web project using MVC and I'm trying to make it based on three layers : MVC, DAL (Data Access Layer) and BLL (Business Logic Layer).
I'm also trying to use repositories and I'm doing it code-first.
Anyway I've searched a lot on the web but yet if you've got a good reference for me I'll be glad to see it .
My current project looks like this:
And here are my questions:
Where are the Product and User classes that represent tables supposed to be? It seems that I need to use them in the BLL and I don't really need them in the DAL but for the PASContext.
Where do I initiate the PASContext? In all of the examples I've seen on the internet no one made a constructor in the repository that takes 0 argument, which means that the context is not created within the repository (and I've read some reasons why like so all repositories will use one context).
If I'm trying to initiate the PASContext in the ProductBLL the compiler says it doesn't recognize it and I'm missing a reference (although I've added the needed reference and the name PASContext is marked in a blue like vs did recognize it)
PASContext is the class that is inherited from DbContext.
Here is some code to demonstrate:
public class ProductsBLL
{
private EFRepository<Product> productsRepository;
private List<Product> products;
public ProductsBLL()
{
PASContext context = new PASContext();
productsRepository = new EFRepository<Product>(context);
//LoadData();
}
About the View models, if I want, for example, to present a list of products for the client, do I need to create a ProductViewModel, get the data from ProductsBLL which has a list of Product and convert it to a list of ProductViewModel and then send it to the controller?
In addition, in the ProductController, do I only initiate ProductsBLL? I don't initiate any repository or context, right?
If someone could show me some project that uses repository, three-tier architecture and takes data from the database, transfers it to the BLL and from there to the MVC layer and using a ViewModel show it to the client it will be great.
Question 1
Where are the Product and User classes that represent tables supposed to be?
I would have these in a project that can be referenced by all other projects. That is, all other projects can depend on the solution with the models. In the case of onion architecture the models belong in the core which is at the center of the solution.
In your case I'd put them in the BLL.
Question 2
Where do I initiate the PASContext?
The reason why you don't normally see this done directly is because it's very common to use Dependency Injection or DI (What is dependency injection?)
This means that you don't need to instantiate a DbContext directly; you let the DI container do it for you. In my MVC applications the context has a PerWebRequest lifestyle.
PerWebRequest Lifestyle:
Instance of a component will be shared in scope of a single web request. The instance will be created the first time it's requested in scope of the web request.
A context is created when the request is made, used throughout the request (so all repositories gain the benefits of the first-level caching) and then the context is disposed of when the request is completed. All of it is managed by the DI container.
Question 3
do I need to create a ProductViewModel [...] ?
You generally only have one view-model to give to a view. The view should be its own object that has all of the things that the view needs in order to display everything. You suggest that you create multiple view-model objects and pass that to the view. My concern with that approach is what happens if you want to display more information for that view? Say, you want to display a single DateTime object to the user. Now you want to display one of something but you're passing many objects to the view.
Instead, separate things up. Create a single view-model and pass that to the view. If you have a part of the view that needs to display many of something, have the view call it as a child action or partial so that the view isn't doing too much.
Your approach:
A different approach:
Conclusion
If someone could show me some project that uses [...] three-tier architecture
I'm not sure about three-tier architecture. Here are some example projects that use a variety of solution architectures:
MVCForum
EFMVC
Official MVC samples
There is no single correct approach - just good and bad approaches.
I would start here. You'll get a lot more information on broad topics like this from prepared resources sources.
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/getting-started-with-aspnet-mvc3/cs/intro-to-aspnet-mvc-3.
Update
In-depth tutorials
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/70061/Architecture-Guide-ASP-NET-MVC-Framework-N-tier-En
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/hands-on-labs/aspnet-mvc-4-models-and-data-access
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef-5-using-mvc-4
http://www.codedigest.com/Articles/ASPNET/187_How_to_create_a_website_using_3_tier_architecture.aspx
http://www.mvcsharp.org/Basics_of_MVC_and_MVP/Default.aspx
Example Projects
http://prodinner.codeplex.com/
http://www.nopcommerce.com/
http://www.mvcsharp.org/Getting_started_with_MVCSharp/Default.aspx
Related
I have recently started working as a web developer. I work with ASP .NET MVC 4 and NHibernate.
At my work-place, we are strictly made to use viewmodels to transfer data to and fro between a controller and a view. And the viewmodels are not supposed to contain any object of a model.
I understand that it is a sort of a tier between the controller and the view.
But I find it repetitive and redundant to write a viewmodel class even if we can directly send the model's object to the view (in most cases).
For example, if i want to display an order i can do this in the controller's action -
return View(Repository.Get<Order>(id));
But instead, I have to write a viewmodel, fill it with the fetched order and then pass it to the view.
So, my question is, what purpose does writing viewmodels serve when we can use the model's object as it is?
For smaller projects, you're right. I hear your argument and sympathise - however there are good reasons for this, drudged and repetitive work, especially in larger and more complicated applications:
It's essential to perform all processing within the Controller's action. However in the example you've given, the Repository.Get method might return a lazily-evaluated IQueryable object, which would mean the DB wouldn't be hit until the View is evaluated. For a variety of reasons this is bad. (A workaround is to call .ToList while still in the controller).
"A view should not contain any non-presentational logic" and "You should not trust the View" (because a View could be user-provided). By providing a Model object (potentially still connected to an active DatabaseContext) a view can make malicious changes to your database.
A View's data-to-display does not always map 1:1 with its Model's data, for example consider a User Details page:
A User's EF Model object represents its entity in the database, so it probably looks like this: User { UserId, UserName, PasswordHash, PasswordSalt, EmailAddress, CreatedDate }, whereas the fields on a "User details" page are going to be User { UserId, UserName, Password, ConfirmYourPassword, EmailAddress }, do you see the difference? Ergo, you cannot use the EF User model as the view model, you have to use a separate class.
The dangers of model manipulation: if you let ASP.NET MVC (or any other framework) do the model binding to the incoming HTTP POST Request then (taking the User details example above), a user could reset anyone's password by faking the UserId property value. ASP.NET will rewrite that value during binding and unless you specifically sanitize it (which will be just as drudgeful as making individual ViewModels anyway) then this vulnerability will remain.
In projects with multiple developers working in a team situation, is is important that everything is consistent. It is not consistent to have some pages using bespoke ViewModels but other pages using EF Models because the team does not share a concious mind, things have to be documented and generally make-sense. For the same reason a single developer can get away without putting excessive XML documentation in his source code, but in a team situation you'll fall apart if you don't.
There is a slight workaround in your case I'll share with you, but please note the preconditions:
Your views can be fully trusted
Your views contain only presentational logic
Your application is largely CRUD
Your views correspond 1:1 with each EF entity model (i.e. no JOINs)
Your views only deal with single Simple models for POST forms, not Complex models (i.e. an object graph)
...then you can do this:
Put all one-way, non-form-related data into your ViewData collection, or the ViewBag in MVC 4 (or even a generic ViewData<T> if you're hardcore). This is useful for storing HTML page titles and sharing data with Master pages.
Use your fully-evaluated and loaded EF models as your View<TModel> models.
But use this approach with caution because it can introduce inconsistency.
Well, i'm starting to think the pragmatic approach to every problem is required and not to just subscribe to the purist architectural standards out there. Your app may be required to run in the wild and be maintained by many developers serving a large set of client etc. and this may direct or drive your architecture.
The ViewModel is essential when you want a separation of concerns between your DomainModel (DataModel) and the rest of your code.
The less dependencies you have between the Model, View and Controller the easier down the line it will be to make changes to the DomainModel without breaking the interface contracts in the View and Controller etc. etc. But once again it's something to be pragmatic. I like the approach as code re-factoring is a big part of system maintenance - refactoring may include a simple spelling mistake on a property of a Model - that change could ripple through the code to the Contract level if the dependencies are not separated; for example.
The ViewModel is used to translate the data between your DomainModel and you Views
A simple example of a datetime stored in Informix has to be translated to a .Net DateTime. The ViewModel is the perfect place to do this translation and does not force you to put translation code in all sorts of unwanted places.
One attribute of a good design [of anything] is the ability to replace or modify a part of the implementation with little or no affects to the rest of the parts of the system. But this takes effort and time to achieve - it's up to you to find that practical balance between a perfect design and a design that is just enough
But yeah, there are many other good reasons to use certain patterns - but the bottom line is this:
Nothing forces you to use ViewModels... ASP.NET MVC won't force you. Take advice from the pragmatist inside you.
If you use same Models as your ViewModels, your application should be very small and simple and should contain only CRUD operations. But if you are building large or enterprise applications with large teams (with two or probably more developers), you should have concepts like Dependency Injection, Services, Repositories, Façades, Units of Work, Data Access Objects etc.
To simplify your mapping needs between Models and ViewModels, you can use AutoMapper
https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper
or install with nuget
Install-Package AutoMapper
According to me, it is essential to have one more layer(ViewModel) on top of Model layer for complex applications that performs most of the CRUD operations because it has following advantages:
To establish loose coupling between Model and Controller. So that any DataModel related modifications will not be affected to Controller.
If you've implemented your application's ViewModel layer correctly
by providing maximum level of IOC(Inversion of Control) via
DI(dependency Injection using Unity/other frameworks), etc., it will
also help you to MOQ your ViewModels(dependencies) for testing only
the controller's logic.
I am probably over analyzing here, but with all the reading I have done on MVC, there seem to be so many opinions on how to do things.
Is there a "Best Practices" site or document out there that defines the responsibility of each piece of MVC?
The few questions I have, keep in mind I am using the EF/Repository&UnitOfWork/Service pattern are:
1) How to get the validation results (error messages, etc) of Domain Objects and Business Rules from the Service Layer to the View Models?
2) I am using Domain Objects and a Service Layer that does all the Business Logic, then I send the Domain Objects to the controllers and let them (via AutoMapper) convert them to View Models for the views. What other types of things are the responsibility of the controller? Is the following code OK? Is this too much logic in the controller?:
public ActionResult SomeAction()
{
var model = Mapper.Map<DomainObject, ViewModel>(service.QueryReposForData());
model.SomeCollectionForSelectList = Mapper.Map<IEnumerable<DomainObject>, IEnumerable<ViewModel>>(service.QueryReposForSelectListData());
return View(model);
}
I don't think that the only thing in a controller is one line that returns a view with an object graph mapped to view models?
3) I think it is OK to have properties on the ViewModels that can indicate to a view if something can be hidden for example and then perform that logic in the view? Example:
#if(Model.DisplaySomething)
{
<div>Something to show</div>
}
else
{
<div>Something else to show</div>
}
4) I was thinking of having my services return some sort of TransactionResult object back to the controllers on writes to make it the responsibility of the service to handle the transaction. So I would have an aggregate service that would start a transaction (UnitOfWork) do what ever it needed to do and then return this TransactionResult that could have error messages? I don't think I should make the controller responsible for managing the transaction, but rather have it just pass in a view model mapped to a domain object to the service and let it act on it?
5) Also, how much of ActionFilter's do you want to use? I know it is a huge extensibility point, but I often find myself trying to stuff all of the model creation into a filter.
Just opinions here based on how we work.
We keep our Controllers so skinny they are anorexic, in almost every case.
As for ViewModels, we follow the pattern of having a ViewModel for every view. The Controller loads it up with anything it needs, and kicks it off. From there, the ViewModel drives everything. In our world, the ViewModel is tied directly to the view and contains no code that would/could be used in other parts of the application. It interacts with any part of the larger 'Model' (service layer, etc) that it needs to and packages stuff up for the View to consume.
For your #3 example, I'd say absolutely yes - it's the way we use our ViewModels.
Again, none of this is gospel - just my take on how we handle it.
Excellent questions!
1) How to get the validation results (error messages, etc) of Domain
Objects and Business Rules from the Service Layer to the View Models?
I use EntityFramework in the back-end and implement IValidatableObject both on my models and my entities. On models, I perform cross-field validation, while on entities, I perform cross-entity validations.
2) I am using Domain Objects and a Service Layer that does all the
Business Logic, then I send the Domain Objects to the controllers and
let them (via AutoMapper) convert them to View Models for the views.
What other types of things are the responsibility of the controller?
Is the following code OK? Is this too much logic in the controller?:
This code is perfect. Controllers gather data, transform data into models and feeds them into a view.
3) I think it is OK to have properties on the ViewModels that can
indicate to a view if something can be hidden for example and then
perform that logic in the view? Example:
Yes, this is exactly what a ViewModel is meant for. To capture all data AND logic required for your view to render.
4) I was thinking of having my services return some sort of
TransactionResult object back to the controllers on writes to make it
the responsibility of the service to handle the transaction. So I
would have an aggregate service that would start a transaction
(UnitOfWork) do what ever it needed to do and then return this
TransactionResult that could have error messages? I don't think I
should make the controller responsible for managing the transaction,
but rather have it just pass in a view model mapped to a domain object
to the service and let it act on it?
I struggled with this a bit in my projects. In the end, I moved the SaveChanges method of EntityFramework to the front-end. This allows me to build a transaction in the front-end and then commit it once. Every method in my ApiController which performs an update, create or delete will also do a SaveChanges.
I use ApiControllers as a layer of abstraction between my back-end and actual Controller classes. To elaborate, my application both uses normal Controllers (HTML) and ApiControllers (REST aka Web API). Both types of controllers share a common interface for retrieving data.
Example: http://pastebin.com/uL1NGGqH
The UnitOfWork still resides in my back-end behind a facade. I just expose the SaveChanges to the front-end. Side-effects such as ValidationExceptions are either handled by ASP.NET MVC automagically or captured in custom ActionFilters.
5) Also, how much of ActionFilter's do you want to use? I know it is a
huge extensibility point, but I often find myself trying to stuff all
of the model creation into a filter.
I only used a handful of ActionFilters in the large MVC project I am currently working on. These ActionFilters are mostly used to enforce security and to translate Exceptions (such as ValidationExceptions) to JSON-format so my client-side validation framework can handle it.
Off-topic: You can never over analyze. Asking yourself these fundamental questions of MVC makes you better grasp the concepts of MVC and makes you a better developer in general. Just make sure you don't do it too much in the boss' time ;)
Same here:
base controllers with common actionfilters
Validation is done using DataAnnotation and model validation within the controller.
tiny controllers with injected wrapped context or specific service layer
Automapper mapping ViewModels/EF Pocos.
I don't really bother about implementing UnitOfWork or explicitly using transactions since EF4 automatically creates (if it does not exist) a new transaction for all the changes done within a SaveChanges (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb896325.aspx. I just have a generic interface exposing the DbSets of the Context as IQuerable and the Add/Delete/Find methods.
But as said it's all personal.
I'm new to ASP.Net MVC and I'm having a question I can't seem to find the answer to on the Googles.
I have a page that needs a model that is significantly different from the way the data is stored in the database. It's trivial for me to write a function that would translate from the database model to the required MVC model (MyModel ConvertToMvcModel(DataFromDatabase d).
My question, where should I put this code? Should it be in the controler. Should it be in the Data access layer (Using the repository pattern).
Another related question is where should I put the repository class? Up until now I've put repository classes allong side the model class in the same .cs file since every model had a corresponding repository. This time the model will be different from what I get from the repository so it does not make much sense to put it in the same file. Maybe I should separate all my DAL (repositories) from the model code.
Any suggestions?
My question, where should I put this code?
The mapping between your domain models and view models should ideally be placed inside a separate and dedicated mapping layer. For example if you use AutoMapper, which I would recommend, you could place your mapping definitions inside separate files called profiles and inside the controller action simply call the Mapper.Map<TSource, TDest> method.
Another related question is where should I put the repository class?
Up until now I've put repository classes allong side the model class
in the same .cs file since every model had a corresponding repository.
The DAL represents the data access layer and is where the repositories should go. You could define a common contract (interface) that the repositories must obey (implement) and then have several implementations against the different data sources that you are working with.
You shouldn't return entities anyway, use ViewModels for that purpose.
Regarding the mapping: what you're looking for already exists, it's called AutoMapper. You can let the service layer return entities to your controller, and the controller will map them to ViewModel objects.
Keep in mind to initialize the mappings only one time, so launch them from your application start.
Say I have a class Student and a Student has a Tutor. On my edit student page I want to display a list of Tutors to pick from.
To do this I will at some point need to hit the Student repository to get the current student and the tutor repository to get a list of all tutors. I'm using Dependency Injection to get my repo instances.
I have a view model class which the controller populates before passing to the view for rendering. I have given that class an IEnumerable<Tutor> which I can use in the view to render a dropdown.
My question: who should populate the list of tutors?
Should the controller be responsible for loading all data, or, should I get the view model class to load it? I can't decide who's concern this is.
Either way, in a more complicated scenario where there are multiple secondary datasets, one of the classes is going to end up with a contstructor being injected with lots or repositories.
It would definitely be the role of the controller as you don't want your viewmodel to be bound to always loading that particular list of tutors.
The interesting problem is, as you said, avoiding having several IRepository instances injected into the constructor and it's a problem with the repository pattern as a whole and some people have gone as far as to suggest the repository pattern is dead.
I don't know if that is the case, but what I would suggest is that you carefully think about how you structure your data access objects so that you avoid situations where you are blindly injecting repositories around, because that can be very detrimental.
What I tend to do is use the IRepository<> instances as a basis for constructing another repository which has a much closer representation to how my application is accessing data.
I usually let the controller worry about populating separate parts of the view model before sending it to the view. There are times when you might use the same view model in multiple places, and not necessarily still want to populate all its fields (in this case, IEnumerable<Tutor>)
I think it makes sense - the controller's responsibility can then be viewed as:
getting the data from somewhere else (repository) and packaging it together as the viewmodel
passing the viewmodel to the view
At the moment, i got quite badly fashioned view model.
Classes looks like this=>
public class AccountActionsForm
{
public Reader Reader { get; set; }
//something...
}
Problem is that Reader type comes from domain model (violation of SRP).
Basically, i'm looking for design tips (i.e. is it a good idea to split view model to inputs/outputs?) how to make my view model friction-less and developer friendly (i.e. - mapping should work automatically using controller base class)?
I'm aware of AutoMapper framework and i'm likely going to use it.
So, once more - what are common gotchas when trying to create proper view model? How to structure it? How mapping is done when there's a multiple domain object input necessary?
I'm confused about cases when view needs data from more than 1 aggregate root. I'm creating app which has entities like Library, Reader, BibliographicRecord etc.
In my case - at domain level, it makes no sense to group all those 3 types into LibraryReaderThatHasOrderedSomeBooks or whatnot, but view that should display list about ordered books for specific reader in specific library needs them all.
So - it seems fine to create view OrderedBooksList with OrderedBooksListModel view model underneath that holds LibraryOutput, ReaderOutput and BibliographicRecordOutput view models. Or even better - OrderedBooksListModel view model, that leverages flattening technique and has props like ReaderFirstName, LibraryName etc.
But that leads to mapping problems because there are more than one input.
It's not 1:1 relation anymore where i kick in one aggregate root only.
Does that mean my domain model is kind a wrong?
And what about view model fields that live purely on UI layer (i.e. enum that indicates checked tab)?
Is this what everyone does in such a cases?
FooBarViewData fbvd = new FooBarViewData();
fbvd.Foo = new Foo(){ A = "aaa"};
fbvd.Bar = new Bar(){ B = "bbb"};
return View(fbvd);
I'm not willing to do this=>
var fbvd = new FooBarViewData();
fbvd.FooOutput = _mapper.Map<Foo,FooOutput>(new Foo(){ A = "aaa"});
fbvd.BarOutput = _mapper.Map<Bar,BarOutput>(new Bar(){ B = "bbb"});
return View(fbvd);
Seems like a lot of writing. :)
Reading this at the moment. And this.
Ok. I thought about this issue a lot and yeah - adding another abstraction layer seems like a solution =>
So - in my mind this already works, now it's time for some toying.
ty Jimmy
It's tough to define all these, but here goes. We like to separate out what we call what the View sees from what the Controller builds. The View sees a flattened, brain-dead DTO-like object. We call this a View Model.
On the Controller side, we build up a rich graph of what's needed to build the View Model. This could be just a single aggregate root, or it could be a composition of several aggregate roots. All of these together combine into what we call the Presentation Model. Sometimes the Presentation Model is just our Persistence (Domain) Model, but sometimes it's a new object altogether. However, what we've found in practice is that if we need to build a composite Presentation Model, it tends to become a magnet for related behavior.
In your example, I'd create a ViewFooBarModel, and a ViewFooBarViewModel (or ViewFooBarModelDto). I can then talk about ViewFooBarModel in my controller, and then rely on mapping to flatten out what I need from this intermediate model with AutoMapper.
Here's one item that dawned on us after we had been struggling with alternatives for a long time: rendering data is different from receiving data.
We use ViewModels to render data, but it quickly turned out that when it came to receiving data through forms posting and similar, we couldn't really make our ViewModels fit the concept of ModelBinding. The main reason is that the round-trip to the browser often involves loss of data.
As an example, even though we use ViewModels, they are based on data from real Domain Objects, but they may not expose all data from a Domain Object. This means that we may not be able to immediately reconstruct an underlying Domain Object from the data posted by the browser.
Instead, we need to use mappers and repositories to retrieve full Domain Objects from the posted data.
Before we realized this, we struggled much with trying to implement custom ModelBinders that could reconstruct a full Domain Object or ViewModel from the posted data, but now we have separate PostModels that model how we receive data.
We use abstract mappers and services to map a PostModel to a Domain Object - and then perhaps back to a ViewModel, if necessary.
While it may not make sense to group unrelated Entities (or rather their Repositories) into a Domain Object or Service, it may make a lot of sense to group them in the Presentation layer.
Just as we build custom ViewModels that represents Domain data in a way particularly suited to a specific application, we also use custom Presentation layer services that combine things as needed. These services are a lot more ad-hoc because they only exist to support a given view.
Often, we will hide this service behind an interface so that the concrete implementation is free to use whichever unrelated injected Domain objects it needs to compose the desired result.