I've been trying to find a good way to handle the Models of our Asp.net MVC websites when having common properties for all the pages. These properties are to be displayed in the Layout (Master Page). I'm using a "BaseModel" class that holds those properties and my Layout use this BaseModel as its model.
Every other model inherits from that BaseModel and each has specific properties relative to the view it represents. As you might have guessed, my Models are actually View Models even if that's not quite relevant here.
I have tried different ways to initialize the BaseModel values
By "hand" in every view
Having a base controller that has an Initialize virtual method to do it (so specific controller can implement specific common behavior for exemple)
Having a base controlelr that override OnActionExecuting to call the Initialize method
Using a helper class to do it outside of the controller
Using a Model Factory
But none of those really appeal to me:
Seems obvious to me, but DRY is one reason enough to justify that (actually I never tried that solution at all, I'm just putting it to be able to loop on that point in the last point).
I don't like that one because it means that whenever a new Controller is added, you need to know that it has to inherit from the BaseController and that you need to call the Initialize method, not to mention that if your controller has overriden the base one, to call the base anyway to maintain the values.
see next point
and 3. are a variation on the same topic but that doesn't really help with the issues of the second solution.
My favorite so far, but now I have to pass a few more variables to set those values. I like it for the inversion of dependence. But then if I want to provide values from the session, I need to pass them explicitly for exemple, then I'm back to square one as I have to provide them by hand (being references or through an interface of any kind)
Of course, (almost) all of those solutions work, but I'm looking for a better way to do it.
While typing this question, I found maybe a new path, the builder pattern that might also do, but implementations can become quickly a burden too, as we can have dozens of views and controllers.
I'll gladly take any serious recommandation/hint/advice/patterns/suggestion !
Update
Thanks to #EBarr I came up with another solution, using an ActionFilterAttribute (not production code, did it in 5 minutes):
public class ModelAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public Type ModelType { get; private set; }
public ModelAttribute(string typeName) : this(Type.GetType(typeName)) { }
public ModelAttribute(Type modelType)
{
if(modelType == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("modelType"); }
ModelType = modelType;
if (!typeof(BaseModel).IsAssignableFrom(ModelType))
{
throw new ArgumentException("model type should inherit BaseModel");
}
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
var model = ModelFactory.GetModel(ModelType);
var foo = filterContext.RequestContext.HttpContext.Session["foo"] as Foo;
model.Foo = foo;
model.Bar = somevalue;
filterContext.Controller.TempData["model"] = model;
}
}
Calling it is then really simple:
[Model(typeof(HomeModel))]
public ActionResult Index()
{
var homeModel = TempData["model"] as HomeModel;
// Add View Specific stuff
return View(homeModel);
}
And it gives me the best of every world. The only drawback is to find a proper way to passe the model back to the action.
Here it's done using the TempData object, but I also consider updating the model that one can find in the ActionParameters.
I'm still taking any serious recommandation/hint/advice/patterns/suggestion for that, or the previous points.
I went through almost exactly the same process as I dove into MVC. And you're right, none of the solutions feel that great.
In the end I used a series of base models. For various reasons I had a few different types of base models, but the logic should apply to a single base type. The majority of my view models then inherited from one of the bases. Then, depending on need/timing i fill the base portion of the model in ActionExecuting or OnActionExecuted.
A snippet of my code that should make the process clear:
if (filterContext.ActionParameters.ContainsKey("model")) {
var tempModel = (System.Object)filterContext.ActionParameters["model"];
if (typeof(BaseModel_SuperLight).IsAssignableFrom(tempModel.GetType())) {
//do stuff required by light weight model
}
if (typeof(BaseModel_RegularWeight).IsAssignableFrom(tempModel.GetType())) {
//do more costly stuff for regular weight model here
}
}
In the end my pattern didn't feel too satisfying. It was, however, practical, flexible and easy to implement varying levels of inheritance. I was also able to inject pre or post controller execution, which mattered a lot in my case. Hope this helps.
The idea that gave me #EBarr to use an action filter was actually working but felt wrong in the end, because there was no clean way to retrieve the model without passing through a viewbag, or the httpcontext items, or something alike. Also, it made mandatory to decorate every action with its model. It also made the postback more difficult to handle. I still believe that this solution has merits and might be useful in some specific scenarios.
So I was back to square one and started looking more into that topic. I came to the following. First the problem has two aspects
Initializing the data for the views
Rendering the data
While looking for more idea, I realized that I was not looking at the problem from the right perspective. I was looking at it from a "Controller" POV, whereas the final client for the model is the view. I was also reminded that the Layout/Master page is not a view and should not have a model associated with it. That insight put me on what feels the right path for me. Because it meant that every "dynamic" part of the Layout should be handled outside of it. Of course, sections seems the perfect fit for that, because of their flexibility.
On the test solution I made, I had (only) 4 different sections, some mandatory, some not. The problem with sections, is that you need to add them on every page, which can quickly be a pain to update/modify. To solve that, I tried this:
public interface IViewModel
{
KeyValuePair<string, PartialViewData>[] Sections { get; }
}
public class PartialViewData
{
public string PartialViewName { get; set; }
public object PartialViewModel { get; set; }
public ViewDataDictionary ViewData { get; set; }
}
For exemple, my model for the view is this:
public class HomeViewModel : IViewModel
{
public Article[] Articles { get; set; } // Article is just a dummy class
public string QuickContactMessage { get; set; } // just here to try things
public HomeViewModel() { Articles = new Article[0]; }
private Dictionary<string, PartialViewData> _Sections = new Dictionary<string, PartialViewData>();
public KeyValuePair<string, PartialViewData>[] Sections
{
get { return _Sections.ToArray(); }
set { _Sections = value.ToDictionary(item => item.Key, item => item.Value); }
}
}
This get initialized in the action:
public ActionResult Index()
{
var hvm = ModelFactory.Get<HomeViewModel>(); // Does not much, basicaly a new HomeViewModel();
hvm.Sections = LayoutHelper.GetCommonSections().ToArray(); // more on this just after
hvm.Articles = ArticlesProvider.GetArticles(); // ArticlesProvider could support DI
return View(hvm);
}
LayoutHelper is a property on the controller (which could be DI'ed if needed):
public class DefaultLayoutHelper
{
private Controller Controller;
public DefaultLayoutHelper(Controller controller) { Controller = controller; }
public Dictionary<string, PartialViewData> GetCommonSections(QuickContactModel quickContactModel = null)
{
var sections = new Dictionary<string, PartialViewData>();
// those calls were made in methods in the solution, I removed it to reduce the length of the answer
sections.Add("header",
Controller.UserLoggedIn() // simple extension that check if there is a user logged in
? new PartialViewData { PartialViewName = "HeaderLoggedIn", PartialViewModel = new HeaderLoggedInViewModel { Username = "Bishop" } }
: new PartialViewData { PartialViewName = "HeaderNotLoggedIn", PartialViewModel = new HeaderLoggedOutViewModel() });
sections.Add("quotes", new PartialViewData { PartialViewName = "Quotes" });
sections.Add("quickcontact", new PartialViewData { PartialViewName = "QuickContactForm", PartialViewModel = model ?? new QuickContactModel() });
return sections;
}
}
And in the views (.cshtml):
#section quotes { #{ Html.RenderPartial(Model.Sections.FirstOrDefault(s => s.Key == "quotes").Value); } }
#section login { #{ Html.RenderPartial(Model.Sections.FirstOrDefault(s => s.Key == "header").Value); } }
#section footer { #{ Html.RenderPartial(Model.Sections.FirstOrDefault(s => s.Key == "footer").Value); } }
The actual solution has more code, I tried to simplify to just get the idea here. It's still a bit raw and need polishing/error handling, but with that I can define in my action, what the sections will be, what model they will use and so on. It can be easily tested and setting up DI should not be an issue.
I still have to duplicate the #section lines in every view, which seems a bit painful (especialy because we can't put the sections in a partial view).
I'm looking into the templated razor delegates to see if that could not replace the sections.
Related
I have read that in an MVC application one should keep controllers "thin". But when I put code to fetch data in the ViewModel I feel it's less intuitive to locate, meaning when I am troubleshooting I generally tend to look in my controller first (or maybe that's my real problem). Also I find one can reuse the same VM for many different things if you pass data through the controller.
Am I violating some big principle or causing performance issues?
For example, compare these dummy snippets with two approaches, both seem to work just fine:
Assume a Repository called repositoryy with a method GetCourses() that fetches a list of Courses.
1) ViewModel fetches the data and controller directs traffic:
public CourseViewModel
{
private MyProjectEntities db = new MyProjectEntities();
Repository repository = new Repository();
{
public CourseViewModel()
{
Courses = db.Course.ToList();
}
public List<Course> Courses {get; set;}
}
}
public class CourseController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
var courseviewmodel = new CourseViewModel();
return View(courseviewmodel);
}
}
2) Controller fetches data, passes to ViewModel and then to the View:
public CourseViewModel
{
public List<Course> Courses {get; set;}
}
public class CourseController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
var courseviewmodel = new CourseViewModel();
courseviewmodel.Courses = repository.GetCourses.ToList();
return View(courseviewmodel);
}
}
The second option. Btw there's no 'more correct MVc approach'. There is the MVC separation and that's that. Your first option breaks that separation, because the view model does the controller's work instead of being the 'dumb' dto holding the view's data. You don't want to couple the view model to the model.
In MVVM though, the view model acts a bit like a controller, however that approach is best suited for desktop aps, not web apps.
This question already has answers here:
Where to convert business model to view model?
(3 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I'm using MVC 4 with the repository pattern and unit testing also. I have a typical controller that has simple CRUD functionality. I've separated my View Models from my DTOs and I would like to know the best way to convert between the 2:
Models:
I have Admin.Models.Product which is my view model and AdminAssembly.Models.Product which is my DTO.
Controller:
//repo that handles product operations
AdminAssembly.Interfaces.IEntityRepository<AdminAssembly.Models.Product> db;
//default constructor
public ProductController() { db = new AdminAssembly.Repositories.EntityRepo<AdminAssembly.Models.Product>(new AdminAssembly.Models.EntitiesContext()); }
//unit testing constructor
public ProductController(AdminAssembly.Interfaces.IEntityRepository<AdminAssembly.Models.Product> context) { db = context; }
//
// POST: /Product/Create
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Admin.Models.Product product) {
if (ModelState.IsValid) {
//COMPILE-ERROR: how to convert to DTO?
db.Add(product);
}
return View();
}
//
// GET: /Product/Edit/5
public ActionResult Edit(int id) {
//COMPILE-ERROR: how to convert to view model?
Admin.Models.Product product = db.GetAll().Where(p => p.ID == id);
return View(product);
}
How do I convert between the 2?
Do I reference my DTO assembly in my view model and do something like: (won't this break my unit testing?)
//convert to AdminAssembly.Models.Product
db.Add(product.ToDTO());
//convert back to Admin.Models.Product via constructor
Admin.Models.Product product = Admin.Models.new Product(db.GetAll().Where(p => p.ID == id));
Do I need some sort of object conversion black box?
Converter.ToViewProduct(product);
Some sort of interface?
or something else?
Update 1:
public static class Product {
public static Admin.Models.Product ToView(AdminAssembly.Models.Product dto) {
Admin.Models.Product viewProduct = new Admin.Models.Product();
//straight copy
viewProduct.Property1 = dto.Property1;
viewProduct.Property2 = dto.Property2;
return viewProduct;
}
public static AdminAssembly.Models.Product ToDTO(Admin.Models.Product viewModel) {
AdminAssembly.Models.Product dtoProduct = new AdminAssembly.Models.Product();
//straight copy
dtoProduct.Property1 = viewModel.Property1;
dtoProduct.Property2 = viewModel.Property2;
//perhaps a bit of wizza-majig
dtoProduct.Property1 = viewModel.Property1 + viewModel.Property2;
return dtoProduct;
}
}
The long-hand response
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(Admin.Models.Product product)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
//COMPILE-ERROR: how to convert to DTO?
var dtoProduct = new AdminAssembly.Models.Product();
dtoProduct.Property1 = product.Property1;
dtoProduct.Property2 = product.Property2;
//...and so on
db.Add(dtoProduct);
}
return View();
}
While this looks verbose and tedious (and it is) it has to happen eventually, somewhere.
You can hide this mapping either in another class or extension method, or you can use a third party like AutoMapper, as Charlino points out.
As a side note, having two classes with the same name in two different namespaces will eventually get confusing (if not for you, then for the next person who has to maintain your code.) Implement friendlier and more descriptive names wherever possible. For example, put all your view models in a folder called ViewModels, not Models. And append all your view models with ViewModel, or VM. It's also a good convention, imo, to name your view models based on the view that they are for, not so much the domain model that they will be mapped to, as not all view models will map directly to a domain model. Sometimes you'll want parts of more than one domain model, for a single view, and that will blow up your naming convention.
So in this particular case I would suggest changing Admin.Models to Admin.ViewModels and then rename the view model version of Product to CreateViewModel. Your code will be much more readable and will not be littered with namespaces throughout your methods.
All of that would result in a method that would look more like this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Create(CreateViewModel viewModel)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var product = new Product();
product.Property1 = viewModel.Property1;
product.Property2 = viewModel.Property2;
//...and so on
db.Add(product);
}
return View();
}
Check out a library called AutoMapper.
From their wiki:
What is AutoMapper?
AutoMapper is a simple little library built to solve a deceptively complex problem - getting rid of code that mapped one object to another. This type of code is rather dreary and boring to write, so why not invent a tool to do it for us?
If you dont want to use AutoMapper you may use extensions, as suggested by #Forty-Two. If the number of things to map is no very great, I would go with this approach, just because then, AutoMapper == YAGNI
public static class Extensions
{
public static ViewModel ToViewModel(this Model )
{
var vm = new ViewModel()
{
//map
};
return vm;
}
public static Model ToModel(this ViewModel viewModel)
{
var model = new Model()
{
//map
};
return model;
}
}
Similar to your code in UPDATE, but using extensions instead.
I have an MVC application. The following code is being used in multiple places within a controller and in multiple controllers. I would like to have this code in one place and call it from each location. What's the best way to do that in MVC?
The code below gets a row from the database and creates ViewData that can be read from the view. With webforms, I would create a public sub within a class and pass the year and month values. Is there a way this code could become part of the model?
var monthlyexpenseincome = (from vu_monthlyresult in dbBudget.vu_MonthlyResults
where vu_monthlyresult.Month == defaultmonth && vu_monthlyresult.Year == defaultyear
select vu_monthlyresult).Single();
var yearlyexpenseincome = (from vu_yearlyresult in dbBudget.vu_YearlyResults
where vu_yearlyresult.Year == defaultyear
select vu_yearlyresult).Single();
ViewData["MonthlyExpenses"] = monthlyexpenseincome.Expenses;
ViewData["MonthlyIncome"] = monthlyexpenseincome.Income;
ViewData["MonthlyProfit"] = monthlyexpenseincome.Income - monthlyexpenseincome.Expenses;
Generally, If you have common code across multiple controllers, you can create another class which inherits from Controller and keep your methods there and let your indidual Controlellers inherit this new class
public class BaseController : Controller
{
protected string GetThatInfo()
{
//do your magic logic and return some thing useful
return "This is demo return.Will be replaced";
}
}
And now you can inherit from this for your other controllers
public class UserController: BaseController
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
return VieW();
}
}
But In your case, The data you are taking is something specific to your Domain data. so i would suggest you to move it to a different class ( like a new Service / Business Layer)
public static class ProfitAnalysis
{
public static decimal GetTotalExpense()
{
//do your code and return total
}
}
And you can call it from wherever you wanted like
decimal totalExp=ProfitAnalysis.GetTotalExpense();
And You will soon realize, Having so much ViewData usage is making your code difficult to read and Maintain. Do not wait for that day. Switch to strongly typed classes to pass data.
You should place your queries in a "business layer", which is just a class that you call to do the business logic. Then you can reuse it in any place you like, just instantiate the business class and use it. You could also make the methods static if they don't require state, then you wouldn't have to even instantiate it.
For example:
var expenseService = new expenseService();
ViewData["MonthlyExpenses"] = expenseService.GetMonthlyExpenses();
My current problem is that I have a partial view that I want to determine what model is being used by it.
I have had to deal with a few strange scenarios for my project so I will try to outline it here, maybe someone can offer a better way to do this.
I am designing something like the Google iGoogle page. A main page with multiple widgets that are able to move around or be configured as needed. The current system loads the actual widget's data asynchronously view a POST to a controller within my application. That controller will either render a partial view to HTML that can be returned (and then loaded into the page view JQUERY) or just straight HTML/JavaScript that is stored in a database.
This was working fine for me, I had a model for the widgets that holds a dictionary of options that are described via the database, and then used by the partial view. The problem came when I wanted to pass data to a partial view. The best solution I could come up with was having the controller determine which model the partial view in question uses, have some function that will fill the model, and then pass it, along with the partial view, to the function that will render it to HTML within the controller.
I realize this is an odd scenario for MVC (the layers are blending...) and any advice on fundamental design, or implementation of this would be greatly appreciated.
I am currently using MVC3/Razor. Feel free to ask any other questions.
I prototyped a possible solution to this, because it seemed like a fun problem. I hope it's useful to you.
Models
First, the models. I decided to create two 'widgets', one for news, and one for a clock.
public class NewsModel
{
public string[] Headlines { get; set; }
public NewsModel(params string[] headlines)
{
Headlines = headlines;
}
}
public class ClockModel
{
public DateTime Now { get; set; }
public ClockModel(DateTime now)
{
Now = now;
}
}
Controller
My controller doesn't know anything about the views. What it does is returns a single model, but that model has the ability to dynamically fetch the right model as required by the view.
public ActionResult Show(string widgetName)
{
var selector = new ModelSelector();
selector.WhenRendering<ClockModel>(() => new ClockModel(DateTime.Now));
selector.WhenRendering<NewsModel>(() => new NewsModel("Headline 1", "Headline 2", "Headline 3"));
return PartialView(widgetName, selector);
}
Delegates are used so that the correct model is only created/fetched if it is actually used.
ModelSelector
The ModelSelector that the controller uses is pretty simple - it just keeps a bag of delegates to create each model type:
public class ModelSelector
{
private readonly Dictionary<Type, Func<object>> modelLookup = new Dictionary<Type, Func<object>>();
public void WhenRendering<T>(Func<object> getter)
{
modelLookup.Add(typeof(T), getter);
}
public object GetModel(Type modelType)
{
if (!modelLookup.ContainsKey(modelType))
{
throw new KeyNotFoundException(string.Format("A provider for the model type '{0}' was not provided", modelType.FullName));
}
return modelLookup[modelType]();
}
}
The Views - Simple solution
Now, the easiest way to implement a view would be:
#model MvcApplication2.ModelSelector
#using MvcApplication2.Models
#{
var clock = (ClockModel) Model.GetModel(typeof (ClockModel));
}
<h2>The time is: #clock.Now</h2>
You could end here and use this approach.
The Views - Better solution
That's pretty ugly. I wanted my views to look like this:
#model MvcApplication2.Models.ClockModel
<h2>Clock</h2>
#Model.Now
And
#model MvcApplication2.Models.NewsModel
<h2>News Widget</h2>
#foreach (var headline in Model.Headlines)
{
<h3>#headline</h3>
}
To make this work, I had to create a custom view engine.
Custom view engine
When a Razor view is compiled, it inherits a ViewPage<T>, where T is the #model. So we can use reflection to figure out what type the view wanted, and select it.
public class ModelSelectorEnabledRazorViewEngine : RazorViewEngine
{
protected override IView CreateView(ControllerContext controllerContext, string viewPath, string masterPath)
{
var result = base.CreateView(controllerContext, viewPath, masterPath);
if (result == null)
return null;
return new CustomRazorView((RazorView) result);
}
protected override IView CreatePartialView(ControllerContext controllerContext, string partialPath)
{
var result = base.CreatePartialView(controllerContext, partialPath);
if (result == null)
return null;
return new CustomRazorView((RazorView)result);
}
public class CustomRazorView : IView
{
private readonly RazorView view;
public CustomRazorView(RazorView view)
{
this.view = view;
}
public void Render(ViewContext viewContext, TextWriter writer)
{
var modelSelector = viewContext.ViewData.Model as ModelSelector;
if (modelSelector == null)
{
// This is not a widget, so fall back to stock-standard MVC/Razor rendering
view.Render(viewContext, writer);
return;
}
// We need to work out what #model is on the view, so that we can pass the correct model to it.
// We can do this by using reflection over the compiled views, since Razor views implement a
// ViewPage<T>, where T is the #model value.
var compiledViewType = BuildManager.GetCompiledType(view.ViewPath);
var baseType = compiledViewType.BaseType;
if (baseType == null || !baseType.IsGenericType)
{
throw new Exception(string.Format("When the view '{0}' was compiled, the resulting type was '{1}', with base type '{2}'. I expected a base type with a single generic argument; I don't know how to handle this type.", view.ViewPath, compiledViewType, baseType));
}
// This will be the value of #model
var modelType = baseType.GetGenericArguments()[0];
if (modelType == typeof(object))
{
// When no #model is set, the result is a ViewPage<object>
throw new Exception(string.Format("The view '{0}' needs to include the #model directive to specify the model type. Did you forget to include an #model line?", view.ViewPath));
}
var model = modelSelector.GetModel(modelType);
// Switch the current model from the ModelSelector to the value of #model
viewContext.ViewData.Model = model;
view.Render(viewContext, writer);
}
}
}
The view engine is registered by putting this in Global.asax.cs:
ViewEngines.Engines.Clear();
ViewEngines.Engines.Add(new ModelSelectorEnabledRazorViewEngine());
Rendering
My home view includes the following lines to test it all out:
#Html.Action("Show", "Widget", new { widgetName = "Clock" })
#Html.Action("Show", "Widget", new { widgetName = "News" })
One option would be to extend the idea of partial requests in your application. Steve Sanderson has a fantastic example of this, although the post relates to MVC 1 & 2. I think it would still help in you v3, but I haven't investigated v3 to see if the MVC team implemented their own version. In your asynch scenario, you'll need to toy with the implementation a bit, perhaps change the PartialRequest definition to accept different information as needed, but I think this might be a good start. The net result would be better isolation of concerns, allowing individual controllers to manage a particular type of partial, and in turn be better aware of the model Type you want to work with.
I'm not 100% sure that this is what you'd be looking for, but the [ChildActionOnly] attribute can be added to a method within your controller. That requires that the method can only be called from a partial view. Then you can set up your partial view for that method that basically resembles one of your widgets. Check out the MVC Music Store example here:
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-music-store-part-10
What about a dynamic view model? Layouts in MVC3 use them, and maybe you can use something similar for your purposes:
Dynamic in C# 4.0: Introducing the ExpandoObject
Fun With Method Missing and C# 4
Dynamic View Page, MVC without a View Model
I blogged about doing exactly this. Please see http://blogs.planetcloud.co.uk/mygreatdiscovery/?tag=/widget
Essentially I built out a similar widget system. The posts also cover how to handle configuration of those widgets. This makes use of the dynamic support in Mvc3 so that any model object can be passed to the view, from a single controller action.
By default all widgets have a collection of KVP properties (I believe this is what the OP has). So for a simple widget we get access to those properties from within the view. I used for a widget that displayed some html (where the html was stored in one of those properties).
However, for more complex widgets we implement IWidgetWithDisplayModel. This tells us that before we pass the loaded widget back to the view, we need to "build" our display model.
Here's the controller action that does that. Check the posts for full details.
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Get(string name)
{
var widget = widgetService.GetWidgetBySystemName(name, true);
if (widget == null)
return Content(string.Format("Widget [{0}] not found!", name));
if (!this.ViewExists(widget.WidgetName))
return Content(string.Format("A template for widget [{0}] was not found.", widget.WidgetName));
if (widget is IWidgetWithDisplayModel) {
(widget as IWidgetWithDisplayModel).CreateDisplayModel();
}
return PartialView(widget.WidgetName, widget);
}
I think I know the answer, but I would like to bounce around some ideas.
I would like to pass several (in this instance 2) somewhat different pieces of data to a View. My initial thought is simply to wrap-up the various objects into a containing object and pass them along that way. Then from the View, I'd have something like
var objContainer = ViewData.Model;
var thisObject = objContainer.ThisObject;
var thatObject = objContainer.ThatObject;
and these could be used independently in the Master Page and View Page.
Is that the "best" way?
I find it useful to create additional classes dedicated that are to be presented to the Views. I keep them in a separate namespace called 'Core.Presentation' to keep things organized. Here is an example:
namespace Core.Presentation
{
public class SearchPresentation
{
public IList<StateProvince> StateProvinces { get; set; }
public IList<Country> Countries { get; set; }
public IList<Gender> Genders { get; set; }
public IList<AgeRange> AgeRanges { get; set; }
}
}
Then I make sure that my View is a strongly typed view that uses the generic version of that presentation class:
public partial class Search : ViewPage<SearchPresentation>
That way in the View, I can use Intellisense and easily navigate through the items.
Yes, the class that you specify as the model can be composed of other classes. However, why not just use the dictionary like so:
ViewData["foo"] = myFoo;
ViewData["bar"] = myBar;
I think this is preferable to defining the model as a container for otherwise unrelated objects, which to me has a funny smell.
I've got the same dealie going on. Here's my solution (may not be the best practice, but it works for me).
I created a number of "Grouping" classes:
public class Duo<TFirst,TSecond> { /*...*/ }
public class Trio<TFirst,TSecond, TThird> { /*...*/ }
and a factory object to create them (to take advantage of type inference... some of the TFirsts and TSeconds and TThirds can be LONG)
public static class Group{
public static Duo<TFirst, TSecond> Duo(TFirst first, TSecond second) {
return new Duo<TFirst, TSecond>(first, second);
}
/*...*/
}
It gives me type safety and intellisense with a minimum of fuss. It just smells because you're grouping together classes that essentially have no real relation between them into a single object. I suppose it might be better to extend the ViewPage class to add a second and third ViewModel, but the way I did it takes lots less work.