ViewModel is a term that is used in both MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel) and the recommended implementation for ASP.NET MVC. Researching "ViewModel" can be confusing given that each pattern uses the same term.
What are the main differences between the MVC ViewModel and MVVM ViewModel? For example, I believe the MVVM ViewModel is more rich, given the lack of a Controller. Is this true?
A rather challenging question to answer succinctly, but I'll attempt it. (Bear in mind that the answers to these kinds of questions are still the subject of debate amongst developers.)
In MVC, the ViewModel provides all the information necessary for a View to be rendered. The data it contains is created using data defined in the Model. The View reads the ViewModel and renders the output. Input from the View is passed to the Controller, which manipulates the Model, constructs an appropriate ViewModel, and passes this to the View for rendering.
In MVVM, the ViewModel serves the same function as it does in MVC, but it also replaces part of the MVC Controller by providing commands which allow the View to manipulate the Model. WPF databinding manages the updating of the View according to changes in the ViewModel (and this effectively replaces the remaining function of the MVC Controller).
It's been a while since I played UI Design Patterns Bingo.. however let me take a stab at this..
MVVM is just something that MS has come up with... because it helps you to get the most out of WPF. You combine the state and behavior of the view into a class (a presentation model) that is easily testable + then you use data-binding to get the data into any view.
This link has a brief of the evolution of MVVM. Combine this with Fowler's "GUI Architectures" series, and you should be on your way.
Update: Didn't know there was something called MVC-VM. Apparently a brainchild of the ASP.NET MVC crowd. Looks and sounds similar to MVVM (except tuned for ASP.NET MVC); the only difference is that it places a restriction that there is 1:1 mapping between VM and View. I'd have guessed 1:N, but everything else matches.
I know this is a (way) old question, but I've been pointed to it as an example of using "View Model" in the context of MVC. I argue that this is incorrect and can lead to confusion by people who are new to either/or/both patterns. Whoever is doing it--stahp. Here's why (and it's even an answer to the original question in a roundabout way).
An example of when this happens can be seen in this question. The user is trying to use a View Model that implements INotifyPropertyChanged in an ASP.NET MVC application, thus mashing together desktop and stateless web application design in an architectural fail and heartbreak.
To put it simply, there is no "View Model" in the MVC pattern. There is, however, a functional equivalent, and that's the Controller. Just to be clear about the parts and their purpouses,
MVVM (desktop applications):
Model - Strongly typed object that holds data to be passed between the View and View Model
View - The UI viewed by the user and through which the user interacts with the system
View Model - Interprets user actions (e.g., via ICommand), performs them, updates application state
MVC (web applications):
Model - Strongly typed* object that holds data to be passed between the View and View Model
View - A UI generator that combines the Model, code and HTML to render a webpage
Controller - Accepts user requests, interprets them, updates application state and uses a View to convert this state into an HTML webpage
The Model is practically the same in both patterns. Desktop models may implement update event notifications, web Models may be dynamic (i.e., not strongly typed), and both may or may not include validation methods or metadata.
The View in the desktop is what the user sees. In the web, it is a generator that outputs HTML for browsers to display on the client side. It must interpret user interaction on the desktop, but on the web that is handled by client side javascript, the browser, and the requests that are sent back to the server.
The View Model/Controller are roughly functionally equivalent, but differ greatly in how they are implemented and how they operate. In the View Model, user interaction with the application is transferred to View Models via ICommands, routed events, and other methods (many MVVM frameworks provide different ways to hook View Models to the UI and other parts of the application). In a Controller, a request comes in with all information needed for the Controller to return a result to the user (assuming it's a 200 OK request). The Controller must perform whatever work is necessary to create the state (aka Model) needed for the HTML generator (the View) to create the response. Design-wise, the Controller sits above the View and Model knowing and controlling both, whereas the ViewModel sits next to the View, passing the Model (and other information) between them.
What really seems to confuse some people is that there are client side MVVM frameworks that you can mix into your MVC application. These exist solely in javascript in the user's browser, and have nothing to do with whatever particular pattern you're following on the server side. You can run a classic ASP website that uses MVVM on the client side. Hell, you can run static HTML pages that use MVVM on the client side. They are that separate.
These javascript MVVM frameworks typically follow a similar pattern to the desktop MVVM pattern described above, but adjusted to work more in tune with the nature of the HTML DOM and javascript. For example, there is no extensive binding system woven into the DOM, and javascript has a very limited type system, so matching up templates to models is much different than in WPF. They also typically work disconnected from the server, and when they need to interact, prefer AJAX calls rather than POSTing the page back to the Controller (AJAX calls typically are handled by WebAPI Controllers in ASP.NET MVC).
So, to summarize, there really isn't a View Model in MVC. The Controller is the rough equivalent, but is very different in how it receives user input, interprets it, and returns a result to the user. Using the term "View Model" to refer to anything in MVC can only lead to confusion, and therefore should be avoided. Use the proper terms for the proper parts of the pattern. It may seem pedantic, but it should help keep things clear and be less confusing to people who are new to both patterns.
Related
TL;DR
What are the best practices when using .NET Razor views and AngularJS?
Context
We are developing a public website (not an intranet application) using mvc4 with razor, and we weren't very familiar with client script, so we started with what we knew: jQuery.
But now things are getting more complicated and we'd like to switch to AngularJS.
On the .NET part, we use Razor templates and UIHintAttribute (plus some custom ones) to render the right html "control". We also add custom html attributes to give extra information to the jQuery part (like title for a tooltip....)
So we already use a declarative way of setting the user interface behavior, that's why AngularJS seems a good option.
Questions
Since we already have models defined server side, and since AngularJS also uses models, wouldn't it force us to duplicate code?
How do we deal with data binding feature, since we already do some binding server side (in the views). Should we make a completely asynchronous application, making AJAX calls from AngularJS to load data, or can we mix both?
Anything else we should be aware of when trying to use both of these technologies?
I did some research on Google, but I can't find detailed ways of mixing Razor views and templates with AngularJS... Perhaps that's just not a good thing to do?
We dealt with this issue for months when working with MVC plus another JavaScript framework (Knockout). Ultimately, if you're going to be using a client-side MV* framework for rendering your user interface, you will find that mostly ditching Razor is going to be your best bet.
Most of the major MV* JavaScript frameworks, including AngularJS, assume you will be maintaining UI state and rendering your user interface based on JavaScript models or view models. Trying to mix in server-side rendering is just not going to work very well.
That's not to say there is no use for MVC when it comes to developing an Angular application. You can still take advantage of some great features like ASP.NET Bundling and Minification. And sometimes it works really well to embed JSON directly into the page using a Razor view or partial as opposed to making an additional AJAX call.
As for models, you may want to take a look at Breeze.js. It's a JavaScript library for data access that goes great with ASP.NET on the server side to share model metadata.
We wrote our own data binding mechanism that synchronizes the angular.js model with a view model on the server side. The javascript model is generated from a JSON serialization of the server-side view model to avoid the duplicate code that you were talking about.
We are using SignalR to update the client's view model from the server.
Server-side changes of the C# view model properties are sent to the client as a packet containing the path to the property, e.g. Persons[42].Address.City, and the value itself, e.g. New York. The view model inherits a base class that takes care of generating the property path, so the actual view model looks quite clean and we can concentrate on business logic.
Client-side changes of the javascript view model properties are sent to the server in the same way. To catch the change events, we encapsulate all fields of the original javascript model in get/set properties where the setter sends the update packet to the server.
Server-side methods of the view model can be invoked in a similar way. All objects in the view model have an invokeMethod function that can be used like this: Products[42].Manufacturer.invokeMethod('SendEmail', 'mailsubject', 'mailbody'). This will send a packet to the server containing the method path Products[42].Manufacturer.SendEmail and the arguments as an array of ['mailsubject','mailbody'].
In conclusion, the html view (kind of) binds to the view model on the server side where other systems, such as regular Razor views can work on the same objects.
The source code can be found here: SharpAngie.
While I'm reading the book "ASP.NET MVC 4" I'm wondering about MVVM. I started googling and cannot find any books about developing web applications using MVVM, so I must be missing a bit of information here.
From what I understand, MVVM is used in web applications on the client side via knockout.js and other frameworks.
If however I was to develop a Windows Phone application, I could use MVVM directly without using MVC.
Does that mean, the concept of MVVM / data binding just does not apply to client-server web applications?
MVVM is really sort of a subpattern. There's not really any "MVVM" web app frameworks out there. They're all MVC and you pretty much just incorporate a view model if you want one.
With ASP.NET MVC, in particular, you just create a class, generally with a name in the form of [Model Name]ViewModel or [Model Name]VM. That class will have only the properties from your model that you'll need to work with and anything extra that doesn't make sense to put on your actual database-backed model, like SelectLists, etc.
In your action, you just pass an instance of this view model to your view instead of your model:
return View(viewModelInstance);
And, of course, make sure your view accepts that:
#model Namespace.To.MyViewModel
The only slightly complicated part is wiring the view model to the model (i.e., getting data to/from the view model/model. You can do this manually by explicitly mapping the properties, or you can use something like AutoMapper.
MVVM is the standard design pattern for WPF/Silverlight development, and should not be confused with MVC for ASP.Net development.
The two may sound similar and share some common parts, but they are two different design patterns.
From what I learned about knockout.js, it was designed to create "data bindings" similar to what you would use in WPF/Silverlight development, which is why the MVVM design pattern applies there.
To quote from another answer of mine regarding the differences between MVVM and MVC
In MVVM, your code classes (ViewModels) are your application, while your Views are just a pretty user-friendly interface that sits on top of the application code and allows users to interact with it. This means the ViewModels have a huge job, because they are your application, and are responsible for everything from application flow to business logic.
With MVC, your Views are your application, while your Controller handles application flow. Application logic is typically found in ViewModels, which are considered part of the M in MVC (sidenote: the M in MVC cannot be considered the same as the M in MVVM because MVC's M layer contains more functionality than MVVM's M layer). A user is given a screen (View), they interact with it then submit something to the Controller, and the Controller decides who does what with the data and returns a new View to the user.
MVC is a one-way data-binding system.
Fill your Model in Controller, then pass it to View.
MVVM is a two-way data-binding one.
Fill your Model, use it in View, when the View state's changes, your Model update automatically.(Vice-versa)
Does that mean, the concept of MVVM / data binding just does not apply to client-server web applications?
No, you can apply the MVVM pattern to client-server web applications.
In fact Asp.Net MVC actually kind of does use this pattern - when the controller creates the view, it can pass in a "view-model". This view-model is often a POCO data object with all the data that a particular view needs, drawn from the model (database). The view uses this data to render the html page.
MVVM on wikipedia says it was introduced by Microsoft with WPF. Specifically, the view binds to properties on the view-model. The view-model then maps this to the database. By this definition then, Asp.Net does not exactly match that. Client-side frameworks like knockout.js and vue.js do support this kind of 2-way binding with view-model properties.
All these patterns are based on the fantastic MV* pattern. It was originally called the MVC design pattern. So this is the exact same pattern as Asp.Net MVC then? Actually, not quite. Controller means something completely different to start with (see MVC on wikipedia). The original MVC controller handles all user input directly not via the view. Second, the original MVC pattern was designed for a desktop app GUI and Asp.Net MVC adapted the pattern for use in a client-server web app. An ASP.Net controller is a collection of http end-points which the client-side html page can hit (eg form-post, page-navigation, ajax).
So there are a lot of M-something-V patterns and the general pattern is often called the MVC design pattern.
There's one more important wrinkle: client-side vs server-side. We've introduced rich client-side javascript frameworks and the fantastic MV* pattern is great here too. So now we could have something like: client-side View-Model-ServerHTTPEndPoints and server-side ServerHTTPEndPoints-ServerModel. The server-endpoints refers to Asp.Net controllers or the equivalent in whatever web framework or programming language you are using. From the server-side point of view, the entire client-side html is the view. The client-side model talks to the server ajax api (http endpoints) to sync data or trigger advanced actions. The ServerModel is normally a database. In knockout/vue, instead of client-side "Model", it would be ViewModel. If you use react/vue with redux/flux then the client-side would be View-ViewModel-Model-ServerHTTPEndPoints where the Model would be the redux/flux Stores. Also, often on the server-side, a service is introduced: ServerHTTPEndPoints-Service-Model. This way unit tests can hit the service directly rather than firing up the entire web server and making HTTP connections.
I have used MVVM in desktop applications and I have a property in my viewmodels named Model where I store a business object as the model. My views have a property named DataContext where the viewmodels are stored before the views are loaded. A view bind its controls to the business object using the path DataContext.Model.BusObjPropertyName. I have a UserInteractionService that register from the start the relationships between views and viewmodels. When a viewmodel needs to show another viewmodel, it calls the method ShowView in the UserInteractionService and pass the viewmodel as parameter. Then the service instantiate the view corresponding to the viewmodel received, set its DataContext property with the viewmodel and show it.
If it is possible to do the bindings to a path like that above in Asp, all this model can be reused either in desktop as in Web applications.
Could someone please explain MVC to me in Ruby on Rails, in layman terms. I am especially interested in understanding the Model in MVC (can't get my head around the model).
Some background, MVC is a (compound) design pattern and was developed in 1979 by Trygve Reenskaug (Smalltalk).
True MVC was primarily planned for use in n-tier (non web) systems and it splits a system into 3 distinct parts, a Model, View and Controller
The Model
Contains data for the application (often linked to a database)
Contains state of the application (e.g. what orders a customer has)
Contains all business logic
Notifies the View of state changes (** not true of ROR, see below)
No knowledge of user interfaces, so it can be reused
The View
Generates the user interface which presents data to the user
Passive, i.e. doesn’t do any processing
Views work is done once the data is displayed to the user.
Many views can access the same model for different reasons
The Controller
Receive events from the outside world (usually through views)
Interact with the model
Displays the appropriate view to the user
** Classic MVC is not suited to web applications, as the model cannot send all changes to the view in an observer fashion (the view is a web page). The Model2 was introduced to overcome the changing infrastructure by JSP team in 90s . MVC Web frameworks are really not MVC, but Model2 (this is true of Ruby on Rails).
Here is a description of GUI patterns including MVC from the master, Martin Fowler
GUI Architectures
The best book I have found so far is Agile Web Development with Rails. It begins by assuming no knowledge, and is quite comprehensive.
Hope this helps to shed some light for you!
MVC basically indicates Model-View-Controller. And MVC used by many languages like PHP, Perl, Python etc. Generally MVC works like this:
Request first comes to the controller, controller finds and appropriate view and interacts with model, model interacts with your database and send the response to controller then controller based on the response give the output parameter to view.
Your Model is the data structure that your program uses.
The View is the part that interacts with the screen or the next level up.
The Controller generally processes data between the model and view
MVC structures are often nested, so a "Model" or "View" may contain its own MVC (Think of a component on the screen. You may just fill it with a string, but behind the scenes the code of the component draws its own little view, has it's own little model (the string you pass in) and has a little controller drawing the data onto the view.
In Rails, the roles of the model, view and controller are well-defined by the framework, any tutorial will point out the three components as it walks you through the files it created.
In other systems, those pieces may be harder to identify. Also, MVC is not "Perfect", just keep in mind that there are valid alternatives, but it's a good way to start organizing.
The Model View Controller principle divides the work of an application into 3 separate but closely cooperative subsystems.
Model (ActiveRecord ):
It maintains the relationship between the objects and the database and handles validation, association, transactions, and more.
This subsystem is implemented in ActiveRecord library, which provides an interface and binding between the tables in a relational database and the Ruby program code that manipulates database records. Ruby method names are automatically generated from the field names of database tables.
View ( ActionView ):
It is a presentation of data in a particular format, triggered by a controller's decision to present the data. They are script-based template systems like JSP, ASP, PHP, and very easy to integrate with AJAX technology.
This subsystem is implemented in ActionView library, which is an Embedded Ruby (ERb) based system for defining presentation templates for data presentation. Every Web connection to a Rails application results in the displaying of a view.
Controller ( ActionController ):
The facility within the application that directs traffic, on the one hand, querying the models for specific data, and on the other hand, organizing that data (searching, sorting, messaging it) into a form that fits the needs of a given view.
This subsystem is implemented in ActionController, which is a data broker sitting between ActiveRecord (the database interface) and ActionView (the presentation engine).
Check the links below for clear understanding of mvc in rails:
http://www.bogotobogo.com/RubyOnRails/RubyOnRails_Model_View_Controller_MVC.php
https://betterexplained.com/articles/intermediate-rails-understanding-models-views-and-controllers/
I think the best way to wrap your head around MVC is by example. Try coding up a simple Rails app using MVC. There are many tutorials online, such as the blog example at "Getting Started with Rails".
If chose to learn by coding an example, check out the answers to Where can I find clear examples of MVC?
MVC isn't specifically just for Ruby on Rails. It was actually created awhile before Ruby on Rails ever came around. It's mainly just a way of organizing your code so that you have some code that's responsible for your models (the Class version of a database table), some code that's responsible for your views (what's visually being displayed to the user) and code that's responsible for your controllers (what ties the views to the models and performs the bulk of your logic.
That's the non-framework-specific description. Each framework that uses MVC has a different way of implementing it. For Ruby on Rails each model represents a database table as a class that can communicate directly in code with other objects without needing to write any SQL. All the SQL is being taken care of in the background and you just have to think of it as though it were a normal class (well almost, it's not seamless yet). The view is mostly HTML and represents what will be sent to the browser. The controller is just the code that communicates the models and views together.
All in all, MVC isn't specific just to Ruby on Rails...that's just the most popular.
Ruby on Rails does not implement the MVC design pattern. Ruby on Rails has folders called controllers, models, and views. The views folder has HTML files. The controllers and models folder have ruby files. The controllers map to a URL and a method in the controller gets executed upon requesting that URL, the associated view (HTML file) gets loaded and the model (data structure) for it is used to populate the view. Thats the extent of it's likeness to the MVC design pattern. It's a shame that people say it's MVC because it's caused a generation of confusion and misunderstanding of the MVC design pattern.
In Rails, the model is a data structure.
Here's a brief overview at a high level on how the MVC Pattern works:
Controller:
Listens on some kind of interaction/event stream.
Controller can send the model that type of interaction/event.
Controller can also communicate with the the view.
Model:
Models will listen in on the interaction/event from the controller.
Is an abstraction of a data source.
Handles data logic and manipulation.
After it is done with logic, it then sends to controller which will then communicate with the view.
View:
View can communicate with the controller.
Knows how to render data from the Model to the browser visually.
The Controller tells to View to do something with something from the
Model.
A couple of things to note is that models can't communicate with views directly and vise versa. Only the controller can communicate with the view and model, so the controller acts as the delegator for the interaction/event retrieved from users interaction on the browser.
check this link for more clear understanding
one more link to get clear
What are the responsibilities of one vs the other?
What kind of logic should go in one vs the other?
Which one hits services and databases?
How do I decide if my code should go in the viewmodel or the controller?
For the record, I am using ASP MVC, but since the question is architectural, I do not believe it matters what language or framework I am using. I'm inviting all MVC to respond
The ViewModel is a Pattern used to handle the presentation logic and state of the View and the controller is one of the fundamentals parts of any MVC framework, it responds to any http request and orchestrates all the subsequent actions until the http response.
The ViewModel Pattern: More info
In the ViewModel pattern, the UI and
any UI logic are encapsulated in a
View. The View observes a ViewModel
which encapsulates presentation logic
and state. The ViewModel in turn
interacts with the Model and acts as
an intermediary between it and the
View.
View <-> ViewModel <-> Model
The Controllers (Comes from the Front Controller Pattern): More Info
It "provides a centralized entry point
for handling requests."
HTTP Request -> Controller -> (Model,View)
--Plain Differences:--
While the ViewModel is an optional
pattern the Controller is a must, if
you are going the MVC way.
The ViewModel encapsulates
presentation logic and state, The
Controller orchestrates all the
Application Flow.
The ViewModel can be on the client side as well as server side.
Wherever it may be, the sole purpose of viewmodel is to play the
presentation data.
In MVC architecture Viewmodel is not mandatory but with out controller the request from the client cannot be processed.
Controller can be visualised as the main interface between client and server to get any response from the server. It processes the client request, fetches data from repository and then prepares the view data. Viewmodel can be visualised as view data processor/presenter thus an interface to manage the view more eloquently.
In the overall context of a web application we can say the controller is the application request handler whereas viewmodel is only the UI handler.
The Model-View-Controller (MVC) is an architectural design pattern which exists, primarily, to separate business logic from the presentation. Basically, you don't want your back-end touching your front. It typically looks like this:
The reasons for doing this is because, by separating the back-end and the front, you don't tie your user-interface directly to your data/work. This allows you to put new interfaces onto your business logic without affecting said logic. In addition, it also improves the ease of testing.
A simple example of where MVC comes in handy - let's say you have an application that manages your company's finances. Now, if you are correctly using MVC, you can have a front end that sits at some financier's desk and lets him handle transactions, manage the finances, etc. BUT, because the business logic is separate, you can also provide a front-end to your CEO's Blackberry that lets him see the current status of the business. Because the two front-ends are different, they can do different things while still providing (different types of) access to the data.
EDIT:
Since you updated your question a bit, I'll update my answer. There is no perfect science to the separation of MVC. There are some good rules of thumb, however. For example, if you are talking about GUI components, that is probably a view. (Are you talking about look and feel, usability, etc.) If you are talking about data and the "business" side of the house (databases, logic, etc), you are probably referring to a model. And, anything that controls the interaction between the two is most likely a controller.
In addition, it should be noted that, while Views and Models are typically "physically" separated, a controller can exist with a view when it makes sense.
You are correct when you say the framework (or even language) for MVC doesn't matter. The pattern itself is language agnostic and really describes a way to architect your system.
Hope that helps!
I think there's some value to learning received doctrine. But there is also value in understanding how the doctrine came to be the way it is.
Trygve Reenskaug is widely credited with inventing MVC. N. Alex Rupp's article Beyond MVC: A new look at the servelet architecture includes a History of MVC. In a section on Reenskaug's 1978 work at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, there's a link to his paper Thing-Model-View-Editor: an Example from a planningsystem. There the pieces are described like this.
Thing
Something that is of interest to the user. It could be concrete, like a house or an integrated
circuit. It could be abstract, like a new idea or opinions about a paper. It could be a whole,
like a computer, or a part, like a circuit element.
Model
A Model is an active representation of an abstraction in the form of data in a computing
system
View
To any given Model there is attached one or more Views, each View being capable of
showing one or more pictorial representations of the Model on the screen and on hardcopy. A
View is also able to perform such operations upon the Model that is reasonabely associated
with that View.
Editor
An Editor is an interface between a user and one or more views. It provides the user with a suitable command system, for example in the form of menus that may change dynamically
according to the current context. It provides the Views with the necessary coordination and
command messages.
Rupp identifies Reenskaug's Editor as a Controller or Tool.
MVC Triads emerged in SmallTalk-80. The model was an abstraction of the real-world concept, the view was its visual representation, and the controller was the buttons and slider bars that allowed the user to interact with it (thereby "controlling" the view). All pieces in the triad were interconnected and could communicate with the other two pieces, so there was no layering or abstraction involved. Since then, Reenskaug has "preferred to use the term Tool rather then Controller." According to his notes, these are the terms he has used in later implementations
Some logic and model should be invoked to generate some data (structured or semi-structured). From this data the returned page/JSON/etc. is created, typically with only rudimentary outlining logic.
The first part (creating the data) is done by the controller (via the model usually). The second part - by the View. The ViewModel is the data structure being passed between controller and view, and usually contains only accessors.
Model represents your data and how it's manipulated. Thus, model touches the DB.
View is your UI.
Controler is the glue between them.
MVC stands for Model, View, Controller.
Model = Data (Database tables)
View = HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc
Controller = Main logic, a contract between Model & View.
In simple and graspable terms,
MVC allows you to develop your applications in a way that your business data and presentation data are separated. With this, a developer and designer can work independently on a MVC app without their work clashing. MVC makes your app avail OOP too.
What are the basic differences between classic .cs-aspx.cs-aspx (code behind/beside) model and new MVC model?
The basic difference between MVC and classic ASP is that in classic ASP all of the code and mark-up for the application exists in the .asp file. In MVC the .aspx file contains only the code and mark-up for rendering the page. The rest of the application for handling requests, retrieving model data, and enforcing business logic exists in controller and model classes. These classes can be much more easily tested than class ASP code because it is separated from the code that is responsible for rendering the view.
This separation of concerns is the basis of the MVC pattern. According to the pattern, the code is divided into three major components -- Model, View, and Controller. Classes in the model represent the business objects for the application, the persistence framework, and business logic applied to the business objects. Classes in the controller accept incoming requests, use the inputs or query parameters to retrieve the appropriate model data, and generate the necessary data for the view to render. Views (aspx pages) take the data supplied by the controller and generate the mark up.
Webforms (codebehind) is somewhere between classic ASP and the MVC pattern. Webforms does not enforce the separation of concerns in the way that MVC does, but it does allow much more of the code to exist "behind" the actual page. For example, you can separate out the business objects, business logic, and persistence framework (the Model, if you will) from the code that is responsible for generating the view. The difficulty is that the controller actions (input handling and model retrieval) are still linked with the view rendering code. This integration makes it much more difficult to test this code and makes the view/controller code much more dependent on each other than is necessary -- the concerns are "mixed", not "separated." In general, this is evidence of bad design because it make it more difficult to make needed changes in the future.
Hope this helps.
Simply put it this way: MVC is how really web apps should be built. Code-behind (asp.net web forms) is not a good practice. If you are truly a developer you will appreciate that the MVC is the best practice since it really separates logic from data and presentation. Simply MVC is the elegant and right way.
A really simple way to perceive the difference between MVC and ASP (or ASP.NET forms for that matter) is that in MVC the Controller is the handler of the request.
Requests get routed to a controller not a 'page' or a 'form'. The controller will pass along info in the request to the model then make some simple choices as to which view that should be used to present the desired state of the model. Note this is the important point the controller has a choice of what view to use in the response.
MVC breaks the relationship between the requested URL and the UI code needed to render a particular representation of data.