This is my first attempt, after reading a lot about DDD, TDD and Repository / UnitOfWork paterns, to make my own application.
I'm using Entity Framework, MVC 4 on .NET 4.0 (the server that will be running this application is a Windows 2003)
This is the basic simplified pattern logic (The original one uses a IRepository, IUnitOfWork, GenericRepository and extends the EF POCOs with a IEntity interface to give access to the common ID field. But this simplified example will be enough to ask my question)
View -> ViewModel -> Controller <- UnitOfWork <- Repository <- EntityFramework <- Database
View
Model.Employee.GetSeniority()
EmployeeDetailsViewModel
Employee e { get; set; }
Employee
DateTime dateHired { get; set; }
TimeSpan GetSeniority()
{
return DateTime.Today - dateHired;
}
Controller EmployeeDetails()
using(var unitOfWork = new UnitOfWork) {
return View(EmployeeDetailsViewModel model = new EmployeeDetailsViewModel {
e = unitOfWork.GetEmployeRepository().Find(o=>o.id == id)
});
}
UnitOfWork GetEmployeRepository()
return (_employeeRepository ?? _employeeRepository = new EmployeeRepository(this.dbContext));
Repository Find()
dbContext.Configuration.EnableProxyCreation = false;
Employee e = dbContext.Employees.Where(expression);
dbContext.Configuration.EnableProxyCreation = true;
return e;
Everything actually works properly. The problem is that I feel like something is terribly wrong here, and I'm not sure at which layer it should be fixed.
After getting suggested, by a lot of people (Hi Darin), to always pass ViewModels to views and no models, I started doing this. However, what I'm doing (I think) isn't much better. I'm simply encapsulating my model in a viewmodel. At first, it didn't sound that bad since my Find() method would turn proxy off before getting an object, which would result in a persistance-ignorant POCO. However, now that I want to add some logic in the POCOs, I feel like there is something wrong.
I think the problem resides in where my Business logic is and the fact that my Employee POCO should be mapped to a DTO object. However, where should I transfer the Employee POCO to a EmployeeDTO? Should that be the task of the Repository, the Controller or something else? I'm also unsure of where I should put my business logic (as simple as GetSeniority() displayed in the example). Should that be added to the EF POCO through partial classes or should that be in the DTOs? Or is there another missing step in the Employee -> EmployeeDTO transfer?
This is a great question. It looks like you are trying to find clean separation which is fantastic. I would break the problem up. You have Data Access and you have UI display and in between you have your business logic. If you want to use a Domain model approach here is how I would structure it.
Never expose EntityFramework Entity classes outside of Repository. You can choose to return Dto's (POCO') or Domain objects from your repository. If you want Dto's for more separation, that is fine you will just need another layer such as a service layer to convert the Dto's into Domain Objects.
Put your business logic in your Domain Objects. So Domain.Employee.GetSenority() would be on your domain object.
Any logic that does not fit in your Domain Objects can reside in your UnitOfWork or Service Layer.
Convert Domain objects to ViewModel in controller. At this point map Employee.GetSenority() to MyViewModel.Senority property. Basically your ViewModel is a Dto and only contains view specific logic which typically is not much.
Where do you call the repository. You could use the UnitOfWork pattern as you have it or simply create a Service Layer class. The key here is that these should be useable to other application types. For instance if you were to write a desktop or Windows 8 Style App, you would likely want to reuse either of these along with your Domain Entities.
I'm sure you are having fun with this. Good luck.
I am learning the well-known Onion Architecture from Jeffrey Palermo.
Not specific to this pattern, but I cannot see clearly the separation between repositories and domain services.
I (mis)understand that repository concerns data access and service are more about business layer (reference one or more repositories).
In many examples, a repository seems to have some kind of business logic behind like GetAllProductsByCategoryId or GetAllXXXBySomeCriteriaYYY.
For lists, it seems that service is just a wrapper on repository without any logic.
For hierarchies (parent/children/children), it is almost the same problem : is it the role of repository to load the complete hierarchy ?
The repository is not a gateway to access Database. It is an abstraction that allow you to store and load domain objects from some form of persistence store. (Database, Cache or even plain Collection). It take or return the domain objects instead of its internal field, hence it is an object oriented interface.
It is not recommended to add some methods like GetAllProductsByCategoryId or GetProductByName to the repository, because you will add more and more methods the repository as your use case/ object field count increase. Instead it is better to have a query method on the repository which takes a Specification. You can pass different implementations of the Specification to retrieve the products.
Overall, the goal of repository pattern is to create a storage abstraction that does not require changes when the use cases changes. This article talks about the Repository pattern in domain modelling in great detail. You may be interested.
For the second question: If I see a ProductRepository in the code, I'd expect that it returns me a list of Product. I also expect that each of the Product instance is complete. For example, if Product has a reference to ProductDetail object, I'd expect that Product.getDetail() returns me a ProductDetail instance rather than null. Maybe the implementation of the repository load ProductDetail together with Product, maybe the getDetail() method invoke ProductDetailRepository on the fly. I don't really care as a user of the repository. It is also possible that the Product only returns a ProductDetail id when I call getDetail(). It is perfect fine from the repository's contract point of view. However it complicates my client code and forces me to call ProductDetailRepository myself.
By the way, I've seen many service classes that solely wrap the repository classes in my past. I think it is an anti-pattern. It is better to have the callers of the services to use the repositories directly.
Repository pattern mediates between the domain and data mapping layers using a collection-like interface for accessing domain objects.
So, repositories is to provide interface for CRUD operation on domain entities. Remember that Repositories deals with whole Aggregate.
Aggregates are groups of things that belong together. An Aggregate Root is the thing that holds them all together.
Example Order and OrderLines:
OrderLines have no reason to exist without their parent Order, nor can they belong to any other Order. In this case, Order and OrderLines would probably be an Aggregate, and the Order would be the Aggregate Root
Business logic should be in Domain Entities, not in Repository layer , application logic should be in service layer like your mention, services in here play a role as coordinator between repositoies.
While I'm still struggling with this, I want to post as an answer but also I accept (and want) feedback about this.
In the example GetProductsByCategory(int id)
First, let's think from the initial need. We hit a controller, probably the CategoryController so you have something like:
public CategoryController(ICategoryService service) {
// here we inject our service and keep a private variable.
}
public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
CategoryViewModel model = something.GetCategoryViewModel(id);
return View()
}
so far, so good. We need to declare 'something' that creates the view model.
Let's simplify and say:
public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
var dependencies = service.GetDependenciesForCategory(id);
CategoryViewModel model = new CategoryViewModel(dependencies);
return View()
}
ok, what are dependencies ? We maybe need the category tree, the products, the page, how many total products, etc.
so if we implemented this in a repository way, this could look like more or less like this :
public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
var products = repository.GetCategoryProducts(id);
var category = repository.GetCategory(id); // full details of the category
var childs = repository.GetCategoriesSummary(category.childs);
CategoryViewModel model = new CategoryViewModel(products, category, childs); // awouch!
return View()
}
instead, back to services :
public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
var category = service.GetCategory(id);
if (category == null) return NotFound(); //
var model = new CategoryViewModel(category);
return View(model);
}
much better, but what is exactly inside service.GetCategory(id) ?
public CategoryService(ICategoryRespository categoryRepository, IProductRepository productRepository) {
// same dependency injection here
public Category GetCategory(int id) {
var category = categoryRepository.Get(id);
var childs = categoryRepository.Get(category.childs) // int[] of ids
var products = productRepository.GetByCategory(id) // this doesn't look that good...
return category;
}
}
Let's try another approach, the unit of work, I will use Entity framework as the UoW and Repositories, so no need to create those.
public CategoryService(DbContext db) {
// same dependency injection here
public Category GetCategory(int id) {
var category = db.Category.Include(c=> c.Childs).Include(c=> c.Products).Find(id);
return category;
}
}
So here we are using the 'query' syntax instead of the method syntax, but instead of implementing our own complex, we can use our ORM. Also, we have access to ALL repositories, so we can still do our Unit of work inside our service.
Now we need to select which data we want, I probably don't want all the fields of my entities.
The best place I can see this is happening is actually on the ViewModel, each ViewModel may need to map it's own data, so let's change the implementation of the service again.
public CategoryService(DbContext db) {
// same dependency injection here
public Category GetCategory(int id) {
var category = db.Category.Find(id);
return category;
}
}
so where are all the products and inner categories?
let's take a look at the ViewModel, remember this will ONLY map data to values, if you are doing something else here, you are probably giving too much responsibility to your ViewModel.
public CategoryViewModel(Category category) {
Name = category.Name;
Id = category.Id;
Products = category.Products.Select(p=> new CategoryProductViewModel(p));
Childs = category.Childs.Select(c => c.Name); // only childs names.
}
you can imagine the CategoryProductViewModel by yourself right now.
BUT (why is there always a but??)
We are doing 3 db hits, and we are fetching all the category fields because of the Find. Also Lazy Loading must be enable. Not a real solution isn't it ?
To improve this, we can change find with where... but this will delegate the Single or Find to the ViewModel, also it will return an IQueryable<Category>, where we know it should be exactly one.
Remember I said "I'm still struggling?" this is mostly why. To fix this, we should return the exact needed data from the service (also know as the ..... you know it .... yes! the ViewModel).
so let's back to our controller :
public IHttpActionResult Category(int id) {
var model = service.GetProductCategoryViewModel(id);
if (category == null) return NotFound(); //
return View(model);
}
inside the GetProductCategoryViewModel method, we can call private methods that return the different pieces and assemble them as the ViewModel.
this is bad, now my services know about viewmodels... let's fix that.
We create an interface, this interface is the actual contract of what this method will return.
ICategoryWithProductsAndChildsIds // quite verbose, i know.
nice, now we only need to declare our ViewModel as
public class CategoryViewModel : ICategoryWithProductsAndChildsIds
and implement it the way we want.
The interface looks like it has too many things, of course it can be splitted with ICategoryBasic, IProducts, IChilds, or whatever you may want to name those.
So when we implement another viewModel, we can choose to do only IProducts.
We can have our services having methods (private or not) to retrieve those contracts, and glue the pieces in the service layer. (Easy to say than done)
When I get into a fully working code, I might create a blog post or a github repo, but for now, I don't have it yet, so this is all for now.
I believe the Repository should be only for CRUD operations.
public interface IRepository<T>
{
Add(T)
Remove(T)
Get(id)
...
}
So IRepository would have: Add, Remove, Update, Get, GetAll and possibly a version of each of those that takes a list, i.e, AddMany, RemoveMany, etc.
For performing search retrieval operations you should have a second interface such as an IFinder. You can either go with a specification, so IFinder could have a Find(criteria) method that takes criterias. Or you can go with things like IPersonFinder which would define custom functions such as: a FindPersonByName, FindPersonByAge etc.
public interface IMyObjectFinder
{
FindByName(name)
FindByEmail(email)
FindAllSmallerThen(amount)
FindAllThatArePartOf(group)
...
}
The alternative would be:
public interface IFinder<T>
{
Find(criterias)
}
This second approach is more complex. You need to define a strategy for the criterias. Are you going to use a query language of some sort, or a more simple key-value association, etc. The full power of the interface is also harder to understand from simply looking at it. It's also easier to leak implementations with this method, because the criterias could be based around a particular type of persistence system, like if you take a SQL query as criteria for example. On the other hand, it might prevent you from having to continuously come back to the IFinder because you've hit a special use case that requires a more specific query. I say it might, because your criteria strategy will not necessarily cover 100% of the querying use cases you might need.
You could also decide to mix both together, and have an IFinder defining a Find method, and IMyObjectFinders that implement IFinder, but also add custom methods such as FindByName.
The service acts as a supervisor. Say you need to retrieve an item but must also process the item before it is returned to the client, and that processing might require information found in other items. So the service would retrieve all appropriate items using the Repositories and the Finders, it would then send the item to be processed to objects that encapsulates the necessary processing logic, and finally it would return the item requested by the client. Sometime, no processing and no extra retrievals will be required, in such cases, you don't need to have a service. You can have clients directly call into the Repositories and the Finders. This is one difference with the Onion and a Layered architecture, in the Onion, everything that is more outside can access everything more inside, not only the layer before it.
It would be the role of the repository to load the full hierarchy of what is needed to properly construct the item that it returns. So if your repository returns an item that has a List of another type of item, it should already resolve that. Personally though, I like to design my objects so that they don't contain references to other items, because it makes the repository more complex. I prefer to have my objects keep the Id of other items, so that if the client really needs that other item, he can query it again with the proper Repository given the Id. This flattens out all items returned by the Repositories, yet still let's you create hierarchies if you need to.
You could, if you really felt the need to, add a restraining mechanism to your Repository, so that you can specify exactly which field of the item you need. Say you have a Person, and only care for his name, you could do Get(id, name) and the Repository would not bother with getting every field of the Person, only it's name field. Doing this though, adds considerable complexity to the repository. And doing this with hierarchical objects is even more complex, especially if you want to restrict fields inside fields of fields. So I don't really recommend it. The only good reason for this, to me, would be cases where performance is critical, and nothing else can be done to improve the performance.
In Domain Driven Design the repository is responsible for retrieving the whole Aggregate.
Onion and Hexagonal Architectures purpose is to invert the dependency from domain->data access.
Rather than having a UI->api->domain->data-access,
you'll have something like UI->api->domain**<-**data-access
To make your most important asset, the domain logic, is in the center and free of external dependencies.
Generally by splitting the Repository into Interface/Implementation and putting the interface along with the business logic.
Now to services, there's more that one type of services:
Application Services: your controller and view model, which are external concerns for UI and display and are not part of the domain
Domain Services: which provide domain logic. In you're case if the logic you're having in application services starts to do more that it's presentation duties. you should look at extracting to a domain service
Infrastructure Services: which would, as with repositories, have an interface within the domain, and an implementation in the outer layers
#Bart Calixto, you may have a look at CQRS, building your view model is too complex when you're trying to use Repositories which you design for domain logic.
you could just rewrite another repo for the ViewModel, using SQL joins for example, and it doesn't have to be in the domain
is it the role of repository to load the complete hierarchy ?
Short answer: yes, if the repository's outcome is a hierarchy
The role of repository is to load whatever you want, in any shape you need, from the datasource (e.g. database, file system, Lucene index, etc).
Let's suppose a repository (interface) has the GetSomeHierarchyOrListBySomeCriteria operation - the operation, its parameters and its outcome are part of the application core!
Let's focus on the outcome: it doesn't matter it's shape (list, hierarchy, etc), the repository implementation is supposed to do everything necessary to return it.
If one is using a NoSql database than GetSomeHierarchyOrListBySomeCriteria implementation might need only one NoSql-database-query with no other conversions or transformations to get the desired outcome (e.g. hierarchy). For a SQL database on the other hand, the same outcome might imply multiple queries and complex conversions or transformations - but that's an implementation detail, the repository interface is the same.
repositories vs domain services
According to The Onion Architecture : part 1, and I'm pointing here about the official page, not someone's else interpretation:
The first layer around the Domain Model is typically where we would
find interfaces that provide object saving and retrieving behavior,
called repository interfaces. [...] Only the interface is in the application core.
Notice the Domain Services layer above Domain Model one.
Starting with the second official page, The Onion Architecture : part 2, the author forgets about Domain Services layer and is depicting IConferenceRepository as part of the Object Services layer which is right above Domain Model, replacing Domain Services layer! The Object Services layer continues in The Onion Architecture : part 3, so I ask: what Domain Services? :)))
It seems to me that author's intent for Object Services or Domain Services is to consist only of repositories, otherwise he leaves no clue for something else.
In OOP Design Patterns, what is the difference between the Repository Pattern and a Service Layer?
I am working on an ASP.NET MVC 3 app, and am trying to understand these design patterns, but my brain is just not getting it...yet!!
Repository Layer gives you additional level of abstraction over data access. Instead of writing
var context = new DatabaseContext();
return CreateObjectQuery<Type>().Where(t => t.ID == param).First();
to get a single item from database, you use repository interface
public interface IRepository<T>
{
IQueryable<T> List();
bool Create(T item);
bool Delete(int id);
T Get(int id);
bool SaveChanges();
}
and call Get(id). Repository layer exposes basic CRUD operations.
Service layer exposes business logic, which uses repository. Example service could look like:
public interface IUserService
{
User GetByUserName(string userName);
string GetUserNameByEmail(string email);
bool EditBasicUserData(User user);
User GetUserByID(int id);
bool DeleteUser(int id);
IQueryable<User> ListUsers();
bool ChangePassword(string userName, string newPassword);
bool SendPasswordReminder(string userName);
bool RegisterNewUser(RegisterNewUserModel model);
}
While List() method of repository returns all users, ListUsers() of IUserService could return only ones, user has access to.
In ASP.NET MVC + EF + SQL SERVER, I have this flow of communication:
Views <- Controllers -> Service layer -> Repository layer -> EF -> SQL Server
Service layer -> Repository layer -> EF This part operates on models.
Views <- Controllers -> Service layer This part operates on view models.
EDIT:
Example of flow for /Orders/ByClient/5 (we want to see order for specific client):
public class OrderController
{
private IOrderService _orderService;
public OrderController(IOrderService orderService)
{
_orderService = orderService; // injected by IOC container
}
public ActionResult ByClient(int id)
{
var model = _orderService.GetByClient(id);
return View(model);
}
}
This is interface for order service:
public interface IOrderService
{
OrdersByClientViewModel GetByClient(int id);
}
This interface returns view model:
public class OrdersByClientViewModel
{
CientViewModel Client { get; set; } //instead of ClientView, in simple project EF Client class could be used
IEnumerable<OrderViewModel> Orders { get; set; }
}
This is interface implementation. It uses model classes and repository to create view model:
public class OrderService : IOrderService
{
IRepository<Client> _clientRepository;
public OrderService(IRepository<Client> clientRepository)
{
_clientRepository = clientRepository; //injected
}
public OrdersByClientViewModel GetByClient(int id)
{
return _clientRepository.Get(id).Select(c =>
new OrdersByClientViewModel
{
Cient = new ClientViewModel { ...init with values from c...}
Orders = c.Orders.Select(o => new OrderViewModel { ...init with values from o...}
}
);
}
}
As Carnotaurus said the repository is responsible for mapping your data from the storage format to you business objects. It should handle both how to read and write data(delete, update too) from and to the storage.
The purpose of service layer on the other hand is to encapsulate business logic into a single place to promote code reuse and separations of concerns. What this typically means for me in practice when building Asp.net MVC sites is that I have this structure
[Controller] calls [Service(s)] who calls [repository(ies)]
One principle I have found useful is to keep logic to a minimum in controllers and repositories.
In controllers it is because it helps keeping me DRY. It's very common that I need to use the same filtering or logic somewhere else and if I placed it in the controller I can't reuse it.
In repositories it is because I want to be able to replace my storage(or ORM) when something better comes along. And if I have logic in the repository I need to rewrite this logic when I change the repository. If my repository only returns IQueryable and the service does the filtering on the other hand, I will only need to replace the mappings.
For example I recently replaced several of my Linq-To-Sql repositories with EF4 and those where I had stayed true to this principle could replaced in a matter of minutes. Where I had some logic it was a matter of hours instead.
The accepted answer (and upvoted hundreds of time) has a major flaw. I wanted to point this out in the comment but it will just get buried down there in 30 something comments so pointing out here.
I took over an enterprise application which was built that way and my initial reaction was WTH? ViewModels in service layer? I did not want to change the convention because years of development had gone into it so I continued with returning ViewModels. Boy it turned into a nightmare when we started using WPF. We (the team of devs) were always saying: which ViewModel? The real one (the one we wrote for the WPF) or the services one? They were written for a web application and even had IsReadOnly flag to disable edit in the UI. Major, major flaw and all because of one word: ViewModel!!
Before you make the same mistake, here are some more reasons in addition to my story above:
Returning a ViewModel from the service layer is a huge no no. That's like saying:
If you want to use these services you better be using MVVM and here is the ViewModel you need to use. Ouch!
The services are making the assumption they will be displayed in a UI somewhere. What if it is used by a non UI application such as web services or windows services?
That is not even a real ViewModel. A real ViewModel has observability, commands etc. That is just a POCO with a bad name. (See my story above for why names matter.)
The consuming application better be a presentation layer (ViewModels are used by this layer) and it better understand C#. Another Ouch!
Please, don't do that!
Repository layer is implemented to access the database and helps to extend the CRUD operations on the database. Whereas a service layer consists of the business logic of the application and may use the repository layer to implement certain logic involving the database. In an application, it is better to have a separate repository layer and service layer. Having separate repository and service layers make the code more modular and decouple the database from business logic.
Usually a repository is used as scaffolding to populate your entities - a service layer would go out and source a request. It is likely that you would put a repository under your service layer.
I need to make a web application and I want to use MVC. However, my Model can't be one of the standard Models -- the data is not stored in a database but instead in an external application accessible only via a API. Since this is the first MVC application I've implemented I'm relying on examples to understand how to go about it. I can't find any examples of a non-DB based Model. An example of a custom Model would be fine too. Can anyone point me to such a beast? Maybe MVC is just to new and none exist.
It seems like I might be able to get away with the DataSet Model, however I've not seen any examples of how to use this object. I expect an example of DataSet could help me also. (Maybe it is the same thing?)
Please note: I've seen countless examples of custom bindings. This is NOT what I want. I need an example of a custom Model which is not tied to a specific database/table.
UPDATE
I found a good example from MS located here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd405231.aspx
While this is the "answer" to my question, I don't really like it because it ties me to MS's view of the world. #Aaronaught, #jeroenh, and #tvanfosson give much better answers from a meta perspective of moving my understanding (and yours?) forward with respect to using MVC.
I'm giving the check to #Aaronaught because he actually has example code (which I asked for.) Thanks all and feel free to add even better answers if you have one.
In most cases it shouldn't matter what the backing source is for the actual application data; the model should be exactly the same. In fact, one of the main reasons for using something like a repository is so that you can easily change the underlying storage.
For example, I have an MVC app that uses a lot of web services - rarely does it have access to a local database, except for simple things like authentication and user profiles. A typical model class might look like this:
[DataContract(Namespace = "http://services.acme.com")]
public class Customer
{
[DataMember(Name = "CustomerID")]
public Guid ID { get; set; }
[DataMember(Name = "CustomerName")]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Then I will have a repository interface that looks like this:
public interface ICustomerRepository
{
Customer GetCustomerByID(Guid id);
IList<Customer> List();
}
The "API" is all encapsulated within the concrete repository:
public class AcmeWSCustomerRepository : ICustomerRepository, IDisposable
{
private Acme.Services.CrmServiceSoapClient client;
public AcmeWSCustomerRepository()
: this(new Acme.Services.CrmServiceSoapClient())
public AcmeWSCustomerRepository(Acme.Services.CrmServiceSoapClient client)
{
if (client == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("client");
this.client = client;
}
public void Dispose()
{
client.SafeClose(); // Extension method to close WCF proxies
}
public Customer GetCustomerByID(Guid id)
{
return client.GetCustomerByID(id);
}
public IList<Customer> List()
{
return client.GetAllCustomers();
}
}
Then I'll also probably have a local testing repository with just a few customers that reads from something like an XML file:
public class LocalCustomerRepository : ICustomerRepository, IDisposable
{
private XDocument doc;
public LocalCustomerRepository(string fileName)
{
doc = XDocument.Load(fileName);
}
public void Dispose()
{
}
public Customer GetCustomerByID(Guid id)
{
return
(from c in doc.Descendants("Customer")
select new Customer(c.Element("ID").Value, c.Element("Name").Value))
.FirstOrDefault();
}
// etc.
}
The point I'm trying to make here is, well, this isn't tied to any particular database. One possible source in this case is a WCF service; another is a file on disk. Neither one necessarily has a compatible "model". In this case I've assumed that the WCF service exposes a model that I can map to directly with DataContract attributes, but the Linq-to-XML version is pure API; there is no model, it's all custom mapping.
A really good domain model should actually be completely independent of the true data source. I'm always a bit skeptical when people tell me that a Linq to SQL or Entity Framework model is good enough to use throughout the entire application/site. Very often these simply don't match the "human" model and simply creating a bunch of ViewModel classes isn't necessarily the answer.
In a sense, it's actually better if you're not handed an existing relational model. It forces you to really think about the best domain model for your application, and not necessarily the easiest one to map to some database. So if you don't already have a model from a database - build one! Just use POCO classes and decorate with attributes if necessary, then create repositories or services that map this domain model to/from the API.
I think what you are looking for is really a non-DB service layer. Models, typically, are relatively simple containers for data, though they may also contain business logic. It really sounds like what you have is a service to communicate with and need a layer to mediate between the service and your application, producing the appropriate model classes from the data returned by the service.
This tutorial may be helpful, but you'd need to replace the repository with your class that interacts with the service (instead of the DB).
There is no fixed prescription of what a "Model" in MVC should be, just that it should contain the data that needs to be shown on screen, and probably also manipulated.
In a well-designed MVC application, data access is abstracted away somehow anyway, typically using some form of the Repository pattern: you define an abstraction layer (say, an IRepository interface) that defines the contract needed to get and persist data. The actual implementation will usually call a database, but in your case should call your 'service API'.
Here is an example of an MVC application that calls out to a WCF service.