I usually create POCO classes and place them under the Helpers namespace -they are not in my database model. Now I wonder if I should really place them under the Models namespace. How should I decide? Thank you for your help.
Generally speaking, POCO's refer to persistence-ignorant objects, usually directly representing models in your data tier. In other words, you might have a table called tblProducts, and a POCO called Product:
public class Product
{
public int ProductId { get; set; }
public string ProductName { get; set; }
}
Which represents that table (but not dependant on it). Your ORM (Nhibernate, Entity Framework) can then map the table to this POCO.
With that in mind, i believe it's good practice to put your POCO's in an entirely seperate assembly, not even the same assembly as your data repository.
This way, they are kept isolated from other concerns (persistence, presentation), should not have dependencies on anything else, and are therefore truly persistent-ignorant.
If you want a bit more info on POCO's in .NET, i answered a question a few months back here.
HTH
If you're referring to your domain objects (e.g. Customer, Order) then it's actually better to put them in a separate class library project so you can reuse them from outside of your MVC app too if need be.
If those are view model or model classes then they could go in the Models namespace. You could use the Helpers namespace to define static classes containing extension methods for the HtmlHelper and UrlHelper classes.
Related
I am working on a new project, and, after seeing some of the difficulties of previous projects that didn't provide enough separation of view from their models (specifically using MVC - the models and views began to bleed into each other a bit), I wanted to use MVVM.
I understand the basic concept, and I'm excited to start using it. However, one thing that escapes me a bit - what data should be contained in the ViewModel?
For example, if I am creating a ViewModel that will encompass two pieces of data so they can be edited in a form, do I capture it like this:
public PersonAddressViewModel {
public Person Person { get; set; }
public Address Address { get; set; }
}
or like this:
public PersonAddressViewModel {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string StreetName { get; set; }
// ...etc
}
To me, the first feels more correct for what we're attempting to do. If we were doing more fine grain forms (maybe all we were capturing was FirstName, LastName, and StreetAddress) then it might make more sense to go down to that level. But, I feel like the first is correct since we're capturing ALL Person data in the form and ALL Address data. It seems like it doesn't make sense (and a lot of extra work) to split things apart like that.
Appreciate any insight.
If you are using all the fields of the Person object, then there's nothing wrong with using a complex view model. However, if you are only using a field here or there, then it's much better to build your viewmodel with only those values you are using.
You can do your view models any way you like, but the whole point of having them is that a view model should be customized to the view it's representing.
It can also be a lot easier to use the first method if you're using something like AutoMapper to map to business or domain models, because the objects should have similar definitions.
You're not using MVVM. You're defining ViewModels, classes for only view purposes in order to avoid to break the Model classes. In that case you can define the properties you want for your best profit. In the example I will go for the second solution but it's up to you.
I'm working on a big project with many developer providers. In that case the customer let us to define the ViewModels that we want keeping the Models (Business Entities as they call) for their concern. Because we are different groups no one is worried about another ViewModels so you can even use one class for one view, no matter if another view is different a little bit from the first one. That's one of the advantages of ViewModels instead of pure Model using.
I prefer to define the ViewModels in client-side through JSON objects for the sake of data binding. With this you can truly use MVVM through knockoutjs, angularjs, backbonejs, etc....
If you want to use MVVM check knockoutjs. It's very easy and pleasant to use
Using Model classes directly or wrapping them (as in your 1st example) in your ViewModel class can be a potential security issue if your Model classes have some sensitive properties (i.e. IsAdmin in the User class).
Say your controller actions takes a PersonAddressViewModel input parameter:
public ViewResult someAction(PersonAddressViewModel personAddress)
{
//save it
}
A malicious user can basically set any property in your PersonAddressViewModel composite object even if your UI does not provide such capabilitiy.
This is made possible by the default binding mechanism of the MVC.
To avoid this, either don't wrap sensitive model classes or use the Bind attribute
More on this here: Pro ASP.NET MVC 3 Framework 3rd Edition By Steven Sanderson , Adam Freeman (Chapter 17)
If you're using that view model to render a form, I would vote for the second approach, since you're combining all the view data required for the form.
I have a set of fields that I intend to share between multiple models. I want all the fields to be included in each entity's table (not just one table for the fields). I'm more familiar with languages such as Python, where this type of pattern is called a "mixin", essentially a class that doesn't exist on its own (it doesn't get instantiated/doesn't have a table in the case of a model class). Instead, the derived class simply inherits the fields and its table looks as if the fields were simply included right on the model class.
The concept of a "Complex Type" in Entity Framework seems like a close proxy to what I'm looking for, but the inability to include navigation properties is a bit of killer. Is there any other way to do this, or if Complex Types are the answer, then what should I do about the navigation properties?
I've read this note in a book:
An interesting possibility beyond base classes and interfaces are mixins, but they are an OOP feature not supported by .NET languages. A mixin is a class that provides a certain functionality that other classes can inherit, but it is not meant to be a standalone class. Put another way, a mixin is like an interface where some of the members might contain a predefined implementation. Mixins are supported in some dynamic languages, including Python and Ruby. No .NET languages currently support mixins, but mixins can be simulated using ad hoc frameworks such as Castle. DynamicProxy. With this framework, you first define a class that contains all the methods you want to inject in an existing class—the mixin. Next, you use the framework to create a proxy for a given class that contains the injected methods. Castle.DynamicProxy uses Reflection.Emit internally to do the trick.
You can do this using inheritance. If you've already considered that, I apologize. Code follows.
public abstract class WidgetBase
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class SweetWidget : WidgetBase
{
public int SweetnessFactor { get; set; }
}
public class SourWidget : WidgetBase
{
public int Sourness { get; set; }
}
Then in your model configuration, you do:
const string discriminator = "WidgetType";
Map<SweetWidget>(mc => mc.Requires(discriminator).HasValue("Sweet"));
Map<SourWidget>(mc => mc.Requires(discriminator).HasValue("Sour"));
You will need to add a column, "WidgetType", to your table. EF will then populate it as specified in the mapping.
Note that the base class MUST be abstract. As long as your table contains all of the fields for all of the derived classes, this is how you do Table Per Hierarchy in EF Code First.
Actually had a chance to discuss this with one of the developers on Entity Framework. It's not technically possible at this time. It's apparently being kicked around, but no one is working on it at this point. Complex Types are a sort-of version, but they of course don't support navigation properties. Thanks to everyone who took at stab at it for me.
Im new to ASP.NET MVC, trying to learn the basics.
Im now trying to learn the relationship between the model ,view and controller.
The interaction between these three looks different, why? (Look at the arrows)
Source 1: MSDN
Source 2 (Page 65): Steven Sanderson
I would be glad if you help me sort out my confusion
Thanks
Edit:
What you are saying is that mvc can be implemented differently?
(Still asking about asp.net mvc - Not mvc in general)
I have been looking at the mvcmusicstore
and it looks like this.
Controller:
public ActionResult Details(int id)
{
var album = storeDB.Albums.Find(id);
return View(album);
}
Model:
public class Album
{
public int AlbumId { get; set; }
public int GenreId { get; set; }
public int ArtistId { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public decimal Price { get; set; }
public string AlbumArtUrl { get; set; }
public Genre Genre { get; set; }
public Artist Artist { get; set; }
}
view:
(Had to add as image, add code the normal way did not work)
This looks like the MSDN version, how would this be rewritten to fit Sandersons diagram?
Maybe this will help me understand!
Edit again:
Hi again
Let me sum this up. Please respond if I'm wrong.
The way Microsoft intended us to use mvc is the one we see in the above MSDN link and in MusicStore.
Then there are other "versions" of mvc such as Sandersons (or whereever it originates from).
So Microsoft give us a basic way of how to use the mvc framework, but it is ok to do it other ways.
A newbie should not get stressed by seeing different versions, sticking to the one seen in MSDN/MusicStore is perfectly fine.
The key difference is the inclusion of the "Presentation Model" in Sanderson's diagram. The ASP.NET MVC implementation often uses the Model as the Presentation Model, even though they can be different (and I would argue that they should be different, but it's a holy war and there's no need to get into that).
In most very simple ASP.NET MVC applications, the model is the data entity. Whether it's an EF entity or a Linq2Sql entity, makes no difference. This is because most applications are simple forms-over-data and the presentation is probably one-to-one with the persistence.
The MVC pattern itself, however, doesn't require this. In a more pure framework-agnostic form, Sanderson's diagram illustrates the fact that the controller is interacting with the model. The model is really the "gateway to the domain core" in this sense. Controllers and views are part of the application, but the model has the underlying business logic and, beneath that, layers of persistence and other infrastructure information (properly separated, of course) which are unknown to the application. The boundary between the controller and the model is the application boundary, the point at which other applications can also connect to the domain core and interact with it.
A presentation model is usually nothing more than a simple value object. It's not an entity of any kind in the sense that it doesn't have to exhibit any business behavior or maintain its lifecycle the way that a persistable business entity would. It's just a flat object with some attributes of data.
It can have some behavior, but that behavior is for the application and not for the domain core. For example, maybe it has some methods or properties that the view can use. The presentation model is part of the application, so it's presentation-layer-aware. Essentially it just holds data that the controller needs to pass to the view (or even receive from the request, depending on the framework).
In ASP.NET MVC you'll very often see the model used also as the presentation model. The same object may be playing two roles in those cases, but the two roles are definitely different.
Edit: Just noticed your updated question...
In that example, Album is playing the role of both domain model and presentation model. (In fact, I would argue that it's not a domain model at all because it's too anemic. Notice that it has no functionality, just bare data.) In a richer domain model, Album would likely have more functionality. For a contrived example, imagine that instead of auto-implemented properties it has properties which enforce business logic when set, and it has methods on it such as AddSong(Song song) and Play() and other such behaviors.
This richer model can still be used as a presentation model, but the functionality might not make sense in the scope of a view. A view is really suited more toward just bare data elements. The controller would interact with the model's functionality. So you might create a presentation model similar to the Album domain model in structure, and it would look just like the one in your example.
Going forward, what if the view needs other data as well? Maybe the view needs to know something about other models which aren't part of the same aggregate as Album. It wouldn't make sense to modify the domain models to accommodate the view. That's backwards. The presentation should wrap around the domain core, not the other way around. So you might add properties to the presentation model which are populated from other things inside the controller.
So you might end up with something like this...
Domain model:
public class Album
{
public int ID { get; private set; } // might need to be immutable
private string _title;
public string Title
{
get { return _title; }
set
{
// don't allow empty titles
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(value))
throw new ArgumentNullException("Title");
_title = value;
}
}
private Album() { }
public Album(int id, string title)
{
ID = id;
Title = title;
}
public void Play()
{
// some implementation
}
public void SomeOtherMethod()
{
// some implementation
}
}
As the business domain grows and changes, this model could change with it. The main point is that it changes at the behest of the domain core and the business logic, not at the behest of UI implementations.
A particular "page" on a particular website which uses this domain core may need specific information about an album, and maybe some other information as well. You'd tailor a presentation model to fit that:
public class AlbumViewModel
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public string Owner { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Listener> Listeners { get; set; }
public string SomeCompletelyUnrelatedValueNeededByTheView { get; set; }
}
The controller would then construct this presentation model for the view:
public ActionResult Details(int id)
{
// TODO: validate and sanitize any inputs
var album = AlbumRepository.Get(id); // after all, why bind the UI _directly_ to the DB? that's just silly
var someOtherObject = SomeOtherRepository.Get(someOtherValueFromSomewhereElse);
var albumVM = new AlbumViewModel
{
ID = album.ID,
Title = album.Title,
Owner = somethingElse.SomeValue,
Listeners = someOtherObject.GetListeners(album),
SomeCompletelyUnrelatedValueNeededByTheView = "foo"
};
return View(albumVM);
}
This is a much more manual approach overall. It's useful when you have more complex domain models, multiple complex applications interacting with that domain, different technology stacks throughout the domain, etc. For simple forms-over-data applications the standard ASP.NET MVC implementation usually works fine. Most of the tutorials for it reflect this, consolidating multiple responsibilities into fewer objects, using decorators instead of explicit code (assuming the use of the same stack of tools across the board), etc.
The examples you're looking at get you to a working application very quickly with very little code. As with any framework, it works beautifully if you do things the way the framework intends you to do them. If you need to step outside the bounds of the framework, you can still maintain the pattern in a more abstract and framework-agnostic way.
Edit: For your update again...
In a way, yes. ASP.NET MVC is a framework which borrows a lot from the MVC pattern in general. As with all things, there's more than one way to do it. Sticking with simple implementations and quick applications, the functionality provided by the ASP.NET MVC framework and explained in its various tutorials is perfectly acceptable and is a great example of the use of a framework... Using a tool to get a job done.
They stick to the pattern in all the most meaningful ways. At the same time, however, in the true nature of a framework (which is generally outside the scope of a pattern description), they try to give you tools which make very light work of the actual development. If you don't have a pressing need to separate your domain models from your presentation models, you don't have to. One model can play both roles. If you don't have a pressing need to abstract your data access behind, say, a repository pattern, you don't have to. You can throw together some quick Entity Framework functionality directly in your Models and be done with it.
Ultimately it's up to the needs of the project, the preferences of the developer(s), and so on. The patterns are more academic, the frameworks are more pragmatic. Balancing the two is the key.
I guess the distinction is that in asp.net MVC you can have strongly typed views which have 'knowledge' of your model and the entity being passed through to the view. In its purest sense though the View shouldn't (or rather, neednt) have any knowledge of the model. For that reason I say Steven Sandersons example is better.
Fantastic book by he way!
I wouldn't sweat it - Stephen Sanderson's diagram is showing less of the cycle but in more detail.
I'd interpret the MS article arrows as:
Controller populates model (from services, etc)
Controller directs to view
View populates through binding model
The microsoft diagram isn't really that useful or informative or useful though in my opinion. You could equally argue that arrows could go in different directions - or even in both directions like Sanderson's do. E.g. Controller also received models from binding, etc.
The Sanderson arrows are annotated well and are self-explicit, and the book is great.
I am pretty new to MVC and I am looking for a way to design my models.
I have the MVC web site project and another class library that takes care of data access and constructing the business objects.
If I have in that assembly a class named Project that is a business object and I need to display all projects in a view ... should I make another model class Project? In this case the classes will be identical.
Do I gain something from doing a new model class?
I don't like having in views references to objects from another dll ... but i don't like duplicating the code neither.
Did you encounter the same problem?
I usually use a combination of existing and custom classes for models, depending on how closely the views map to the actual classes in the datastore. For pure crud pages, using the data class as the model is perfect. In real world use though you usually end up needing a few other bits of data. I find the easiest way to combine them is something like
// the class from the data store
public class MyDataObject {
public string Property1 {get;set;}
public string Property2 {get;set;}
}
// model class in the MVC Models folder
public class MyDataObjectModel {
public MyDataObject MyDataObject {get;set;}
// list of values to populate a dropdown for Property2
public List<string> Property2Values {get;set;}
// related value fetched from a different data store
public string Property3 {get;set;}
}
I also have quite a few model classes that are just a set of form fields - basically corresponding to action parameters from a particular form rather than anything that actually ends up in the database.
If it is exactly the same project then obviously don't need to duplicate the Project class, just use it as is in the view. But in real life often views have specific requirements and it it a good practice to define view model classes in your MVC application. The controller will then map between the model class and the view model to be passed to the view.
You will likely find differing opinions on this. I will give you mine:
I tend to, by default, reuse the object. If the needs of the view change and it no longer needs most/all of the data in the business object, then I'll create a separate view. I would never change the business object to suit the view itself.
If you need most/all of the information in the business object, and need additional data, then I would create a view that holds a reference to the business object and also has properties for the additional data points you need.
One benefit of reusing the business object is that, depending on the data access technology you are using, you can get reuse out of validation. For isntance, ASP.NET MVC 3 coupled with Entity Framework is nice as they both use the attributes in the System.ComponentModel namespace for validation.
That depends on what you mean by model. In the architecture I typically use, I have my Domain model, which is a collection of classes in a separate class library. I use DataAnnotations and built in validation to automatically validate my model when saving.
Then there is the View model, which I place in my MVC project. View models only have the information relevant to the view. I use data annotations here as well since MVC will automatically use them for my validation.
The reason for splitting the model this way is that you don't always use every piece of your domain model in a view. That means you either have to rebuild the data on the backend or you have to stash it in hidden fields. Neither is something I like,.
I have a 4 layered web application programmed in C#... .Net 4.0:
UI Layer
Business Layer
Data access Layer
Entities layer
My data layer contains an edmx
My entities layer contains my POCO objects (generated by a t4 script), and that layer is referenced in all other layers.
When creating an MVC form to create a new customer, for example.... I already have the customer class with fields for first name, last name, etc in my entities layer, but that auto-generated POCO class does not have data annotations for validation... I.E. [Required], etc. for when the form is submitted
My solution right now is to create new model classes that are pretty much the same as my poco classes but also have these additional validation annotations.
What I want to know is if theres an easy way to use certain POCO objects in the MVC model (in the UI layer) without having to almost rewrite the class... and also without modifying the t4 that generates these POCO classes (since I'm not up to speed on t4).
I saw this from another post on stackoverflow http://automapper.codeplex.com/ ... not sure if this will do it or is the best solution.
If your POCO class is declared as such:
public class Person {
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
then if you just change the T4 to make it a partial class, you can then define in a separate file:
[MetadataType(typeof(PersonMetadata))]
public partial class Person {
internal class PersonMetadata {
[Required]
// insert other metadata here
public string FirstName { get; set; }
// and if you don't want metadata for lastname, you can leave it out
}
}
Two extra points - the metadata class doesn't have to be nested in the partial you define, I think it's neater though. Also, the types don't have to match in the metadata class, so you could make them all object if you wanted to (and you might see some examples on the web with it like this)
Modifying a T4 template is not very hard at all. I recently faced the same issue and decided to read up on T4 a bit and then modify the template to create the generated properties the way I need them (annotations, and in my case with NotifyPropertyChange etc. as I use the same POCO objects in an MVC UI and in a Silverlight UI).
Even though you're looking for a solution that doesn't require modifying T4, I hope this is useful.