Is there any reason that MVC isn't equally useful for desktop apps as for web apps?
What would be required to make an ASP.NET MVC directory tree implementable as a desktop app?
Prism
I've always thought of the term MVC as the same as a n-layer application - so correct me if I'm wrong here folks.
When i develope, I always(unless other instructed) use the following model/structure, also in applications:
GUI(Web, Winform, whatever) ->
Business logic ->
Data layer ->
And also with an underlying "Model"
... Which is a sort of MVC - So yes, it is usefull for desktop apps also. The main advantage with this, is that you can develope web, win and mobile(++) applications based on the same code.
Another thing that could be done, is to create the data/businesslayers as web-services...
I think this aproach would qualify as SOA.
EDIT:
As a note, the four levels of applications are created as seperate projects - and then used as adding reference to either the project, or the DLL, or from the GAC(or wherever you like.....) :) Thus, the need for a directory structure is not needed.
Hmmm... well, your view can be rendered as anything... HTML, XML, etc. So, why not XAML? I wonder if you can get your WPF or Silverlight app to work in the MVC framework this way... that is, not requiring a web server to run.
There is nothing stopping you from using the MVC pattern in a desktop app. In fact, it has been used on the desktop since before there was a web.
See Wikipedia for some examples
MVC just stands for "Model View Controller" which describes the way that concerns are separated from each other using the MVC pattern.
As far as using ASP.NET MVC on the desktop, there are a few problems. For one thing, it relies on HTTP requests and responses. You would need a server layer as part of your application architecture to listen for requests and send responses. Second, ASP.NET MVC views are really just simple HTML text files meant to be interpreted by a web browswer. So, you would need an HTML rendering component as a GUI front-end. You would likely want a CSS rendering engine and a JavaScript interpreter as well.
Basically, all you would be doing is running a dedicated browser as the front-end and a local web server as the back end.
There is really not much need since there are many great MVC frameworks already. There are also closely related patterns like MVP (Model View Presenter) and MVVM (Model-View-View Model). For example, many WPF (Windows Presentation Framework) apps are MVVM.
Related
I come from using ASP.NET MVC/Web API and now I am starting to use Angular but I am not clear on the proper way to mix them.
Once I am using Angular does the MVC sever side concepts still provide any value ? Or should I strictly be using Web API purely to get data for the angular HTTP calls ?
Any tips you have for a ASP.NET MVC guy transitioning to Angular would be helpful
Pure Web API
I used to be pretty hardcore with ASP.NET MVC but since I've met Angular I do not see one reason why I would use any server side content generation framework. Pure Angular/REST(WebApi) gives a richer and smoother result. It's much faster and allows you to build websites that come quite close to desktop applications, without any funky hacks.
Angular does have a little learning curve, but once your team has mastered it, you'll build much better websites in less time. Mainly this has to do with the fact that you don't have all these state(less) issues anymore.
For example imagine a wizard form with any traditional server side framework. Each page needs to be validated and submitted separately. Maybe the content of the page is dependent on values from a previous page. Maybe the user pressed the back button and is re-submitting an previous form. Where do we store the state of the client? All these complications do not exist when using Angular and REST.
So ... come over to the dark side ... we've got cookies.
Similar question
AngularJS is more associated with the single page application paradigm, and as such, doesn't benefit much from server-side technologies that render markup. There is no technical reason that precludes you using them together, but in a practical sense, why would you?
An SPA retrieves the assets it needs (JS, CSS, and HTML views) and runs on its own, communicating back to services to send or retrieve data. So, a server-side technology is still necessary for providing those services (as well as other means such as authentication and the likes), but the rendering parts are largely irrelevant and not particularly useful because it's a duplication of efforts, except MVC does it on the server side and Angular does it on the client. If you're using Angular, you want it on the client for best results. You can make Angular post HTML forms and retrieve partial views from MVC actions, but you'd be missing out on the best and easiest features of Angular and making your life harder.
MVC is pretty flexible and you could use it to service calls from an SPA application. However, WebAPI is more finely tuned and a bit easier to use for such services.
I've written a number of AngularJS applications, including a couple that migrated from pre-existing WebForms and MVC applications, and the ASP.NET aspect evolves towards a platform for delivering the AngularJS app as the actual client, and for hosting the application layer the client communicates to via REST (using WebAPI). MVC is a fine framework, but it usually finds itself without a job in these sorts of applications.
The ASP.NET application becomes another layer to the infrastructure, where its responsibilities are limited to:
Host the dependency container.
Wire the business logic implementations into the container.
Set up asset bundles for JS and CSS.
Host WebAPI services.
Enforce security, perform logging and diagnostics.
Interfacing with application caches for performance.
Another great thing about an SPA is it can increase bandwidth of your team. One group can blast out the services while the other lays in the client app. Since you can easily stub or mock REST services, you could have a fully working client app on mock services and swap out for the real ones when they're done.
You do have to invest up front on Angular, but it pays off big. Since you are already familiar with MVC, you have a leg-up on some of the core concepts.
It depends on the project you are working on.
If angularJS is something new for you I would rather pick a small low risk/pressure project to get started and ensure you learn how to do things in the right way (I have seen many projects using Angularjs wrong because of pressure, deadlines... lack of time to learn it in a proper way, e.g. using JQuery or accesing the DOM inside the controllers, etc...).
If the project is a green field one, and you have got some experience on AngularJS, it makes sense to abandon ASP.net MVC and in the server side go for pure REST/WebAPI.
If it's an existing project, you can pick up a complex subset of functionality and build that page as a separate angularJS app (e.g. your app is composed of a big bunch of standard simple / medium complexity Razor based pages but you need and advanced editor / page, that could be the target piece to build with AngularJS).
You can use Angular framework for front end development i.e to construct views. It provides you a robust architecture and once you learn you will find it's advantages over Asp.net MVC's razor view engine. To fetch data you have to use WebAPIs and now ASP.Net MVC project support both WebAPI and MVC controllers out of the box. You can refer below link start with Angular and ASP.Net MVC application development.
http://hive.rinoy.in/angular4-and-asp-net-mvc-hybrid-application/
There are two frameworks currently available for developing UI components for angular applications. I have used both these frameworks in one of the angular projects that I worked.
Material
https://material.angular.io/
PrimeNG
https://www.primefaces.org/primeng/#/
I'd like to use for my next project Ext js and ASP.NET MVC.
I'm wondering what would be the best way of using this two framework together. So far I did some project using ASP.NET MVC, where every action method returned a view and reloaded the page. The Ext js mvc application uses a single page approach.
As I'm pretty new to ext js so I'm wondering if someone could share some experiences of building real world application using this two frameworks.
You can use extjs as you think is better for you. You can use its components as simple widgets or create a full javascript (extjs) client. However, which are the real requirements? a single page client or a traditional client?
In our current project we started using ASP.Net MVC Framework with extjs widgets, it was ok for a while but the customer wanted more and more sophisticated UI and a better user experince (among other thing) then, we changed the app, we left MVC models and controllers (views were removed) and we created a full javascript client with extjs 4.1.
After that we realized we were using an ASP M_C framework (with no views) and that was a nonsense so, we took the ASP MVC project away and replaced it by a WCF Rest service (it also could be done with an ASP.Net Web Api).
We feel proud of our decision and the resulting design. If you can, if you know extjs (learning it is rather hard) and javascript and, if you have support to your decision then, keep your application splitted in two:
a server-side service/api and,
a full javascript application.
Good luck!
I'm not sure I'd agree with the answer by #lontivero, I'm currently working on a project using ASP.NET MVC as the backend and ExtJS as the front.
You do, as pointed out, loose the V from the ASP.NET MVC stack and you end up needing to duplicate you C# view models in you ExtJS Models on the client side but I've found using MVC as a backend (effectively as a rest based collection of Json end points) absolutely fine.
You can utilise the model binding, model validation in MVC whilst leveraging the full client side js app in Ext.
I'm curious as to the points you didn't get on with using this structure (I'm not saying it's perfect, but it does seem to work)
We used Ext.NET (versions 0.x-1.x) in our previous projects. Even after a comprehensive effort to upgrade our projects to the (now current) version, we had to drop Ext.Net 2.x out.
If it fits you, it can help.
The main problems with Ext.Net were (several) incompatibilities with ASP.NET and a lack of trust. They used to keep their schedule, it's far from it for last 2 years or so. And they are behind ExtJS.
Ive been doing a bit of research / reading into mvc recently and was just wondering what the main purpose is.
is it as some people say to seperate the logic from the html
or to create clean url's
i could be missing the point completely, but asp.net forms really seperates the logic from the html and if you just want clean url's why not use a mod_rewrite rule?
MVC is a software engineering concept which is used more widely than just in ASP.net.
In a nutshell it encourages strong separation of:
business logic (the Model) the code which does all the brute force work behind the scenes; dealing with the database, performing large calculations; and
user interface logic (the View) the code which presents information to your users in a pretty way.
The C is for Controller - the ligaments that bind the bones of the model and the muscles of the views and allow them to communicate with each other cleanly.
You are correct that 'normal' ASP.net uses code-behind files so that page markup is kept separate from the code that generates that markup (in contrast to languages like PHP where code is embedded directly amongst HTML), but MVC ASP.net encourages even more separation in the ways I described above.
Take a look at this tutorial for a more detailed discussion of the pattern. Also take a look at this SO question
The MVC pattern has nothing to do with rewriting URLs. ASP.net MVC might make this easier but that is not by any means it's main purpose.
Testability is a big benefit of using ASP.NET MVC. It is non-trivial to write unit tests for ASP.NET winforms. It is much easier to unit tests for Controllers.
If you are doing MVC correctly, your views should be very light, and a lot of your logic is implemented in the Controllers.
Let me compare the two for you:
Asp.net web forms
They matured the old ASP technology that was much more like PHP. Code and presentation were piled up in the same file. Asp.net web forms upgraded this model by providing a mechanism of separating the two. But they built on top of the good things that windows application developers had. The drag drop interface creation with control events just like they exist in a windows application. Event thought code was separate from HTML, they were not separated. You still reference a lot of view controls in your codebehind, hence they're still very much bound to eachother.
Therefore it was rather easy to start developing on Asp.net web forms. But non savvy developers soon got to a bottleneck they didn't know existed (like slow postbacks due to huge view state etc.). Technology used some tricks to make this work. But on a serious large scale application this became quite a problem. Developers had to mingle their code to make it work with Asp.net web forms framework. Their complex forms had complex codebehinds with hard maintainable code with complex state.
The good (as well the bad) thing were at that time rich server controls. Nowadays with web 2.0 they don't seem rich anymore since they don't actually support client side functionality as much as they should. So Microsoft decided to also cram in something else. Update panels. That made partial rendering (and Ajax) possible with almost a flick of a finger. But it came with a cost. Everyone that used (uses) it soon realised it's not a viable solution that a professional application could implement.
Asp.net MVC
Now we have a new technology that doesn't have much in common with Asp.net web forms except for its first part of the name. MVC framework actually does separate code from user interface (view). Controller actions (code that executes on any HTTP request) is kept small and doesn't do anything with visualisation (it doesn't bind data to certain controls etc.). Controller action barely prepares data for the view to either consume or not. It's up to the view. Controller code doesn't in any way shape or form reference any view controls or anything. They're actually separate in MVC.
Views on the other hand just display and provide data. They can be partially or fully rendered. They support Ajax functionality to the point that everyone would like to use. Actually everything is separated into basic little things. Divide et impera (divide and conquer) seems to be the save-line here.
There's not hidden functionality. No flirting with windows development. It pure request response framework. Developer has the ability to 100% control the visual aspect of their app. But for the cost of not having rich controls out of the box. Those may be provided by the community or some developers prefer to create per purpose controls that serve the process much better.
Which one is better then?
Both have their pros and cons. But if you decide to build a semi complex, modern and maintainable application I'd suggest you give MVC a go.
But if all you need to do is a 15 screens application (without any particular interface requirements) it would be much faster to create it using Asp.net web forms.
MVC is a design pattern. Its purpose is to separate business logic and presentation details.
ASP.Net MVC is a mechanism to create web applications using ASP.Net and the MVC pattern.
One of the features of ASP.NET MVC is the ability to use SEO friendly URLs to provide commands to the controller part.
You can do as you have stated but ASP.Net have provided you a mechanism to do this easier.
The way ASP.Net Webforms was designed is that it made it easy for you drag controls on to the web form and code the logic underneath. ASP.Net MVC is designed so you separate your concerns easier.
The URL part of the ASP.NET MVC framework is just a modern phenomena to produce search engine friendly urls. They've infact been around long before the Microsoft team decided to add them to the framework (which required IIS7 before it could be done with no IIS extension).
The greatest pros in my view come from being able to test more easily, and separating off the parts of your application more cleanly. The whole ActionResult architecture of the ASP.NET MVC framework makes it very easy to switch from AJAX to plain out POSTs.
Delphi 5 use to employ the MVC model for its ISAPI extensions, 10 years ago.
MVC is not just an ASP.net thing, it is a design pattern that was widely accepted before it was created within the .NET framework, the thing about MVC is the separation of data from presentation(user interaction) from the business layer. It was just a way for Microsoft to offer that type of design pattern under the .NET framework
Although guys before me already give enough answers to the queston of purpose of ASP.NET MVC there is one thing I would like to add.
The ASP.NET Web Forms tried to abstract html and web from web development. That approach lead to the lacks in performances and usage of rich javascript frameworks.It was possible to create web application without actual knowledge of the web.
And to answer to you initial question, the purpose of ASP.NET MVC, I'll quote Dino Esposito:
With ASP.NET MVC, you rediscover the good old taste of the Web—stateless behavior, full control over every single bit of HTML, total script and CSS freedom.
MVC existed long before people tried to use it in HTML pages. The main reason for MVC is to get a grip on the logic to drive your application. MVC allows you to clearly separate things that should be separate: The model, code which converts the model value for the display and the code which controls the model.
So this is not related to HTML or URLs in any way. It's just that MVC makes it really simple to have clean HTML and simple URLs.
I'm starting a new project soon and investigating whether or not to use MVC, Silverlight or both. This question Silverlight vs. ASP.NET MVC was a good starting point. But looking over the SL3 beta, it looks like there are two things that change the landscape just a bit. First, the navigation feature which is a direct feature of Silverlight and now there is the .NET RIA Services. While not actually part of Silverlight, it's fairly integrated and seems to bridge the gap between client and server operations. An area, in my opinion where MVC is strong and Silverlight (being a client side technology) was not. I understand that you can still use both, but should you and why?
Simply put, no.
Silverlight and silverlight on the desktop are more like winforms/wpf applications that just happen to run on the web. They're stateful and act very differently from a web site. Silverlight apps can only be run on machines that allow silverlight to run. In a business network setup they may have group policies setup so that silverlight cannot be installed. Then you've got a problem.
ASP.NET MVC however is a stateless type of design where pretty much anyone with a web browser can get to regardless of platform. You have much more freedom with your site using ASP.NET MVC because you don't have a dependency on the end-user having any sort of runtime installed.
I think each has their place and it's pretty much obvious. Silverlight is great for creating a rich experience where applicable. I doubt you'll see too much silverlight popping up replacing web sites.
When we built .NET RIA services we looked to enable developers to basically build out rapid RIA's 100% and as a result we targeted the approach in terms of taken over the burden of ASP.NET WebForms etc. To use the two in a hybrid fashion is possible, but it's a question of which piece do you want to take over the heavy lifting.
If you're Silverlight solution is basic in terms of implementation - ie datagrid of data only - then ASP.NET MVC is a better fit as this way you're not having to worry about deep linking etc (as that comes free inside a native HTML based approach).
If however you're building out a larger RIA solution within Silverlight and are using ASP.NET in ways that are specific, then ok thats fine, but you're going to have to remember that with every page refresh comes a penalty that is of course a page refresh and secondly you need to ensure the said Silverlight instance can find its way back to where it was before you hit the refresh (that or loads in a place that enables the user to find its way forward).
It can be somewhat very tricky despite the goodness we baked into RIA Services.
Scott Barnes / Rich Platforms Product Manager / Microsoft.
I think that both technologies have their places - I think Silverlight will be used mainly for special purpose applications and asp.net MVC will be mainly for public and general purpose style webpages and web applications.
As to which one you want to use, well that depends entirely on your needs and your audience.
Silverlight is coming along nicely even for business applications (Navigation, RIA Services, Data Form etc...) But ya the big problem is the plugin.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of HTML so i'm focusing efforts on Silverlight.
It also depends if you're working on a site for fun or not.
A lot of websites built for businesses and organizations have a "read only" public facing front end. That is, information (inventory, catalogs, corporate news) are presented from a rich database, but the average end user has no ability to edit them.
The natural pattern I have been seeing is to use ASP.NET MVC for the "front end" presentation but to use the Silverlight / RIA functionality to avoid having to write all the CRUD stuff int he administration back end. It is a great fit. The administration userbase is usually much smaller than the total audience and issues of download time, Silverlight penetration and so on are not nearly as problematic.
However the Silverlight RIA / ASP.NET MVC story is a very fuzzy one right now. There isn't much information discussing how to use RIA Services to provide access to a shared repository project of the style you build for MVC projects. link text This makes integrating them difficult right now. You could build both your MVC and RIA layers on top of a common EF or Linq2Sql base but it makes sense to share the intelligence of the Repository classed you build for MVC.
Ideally, we will get good documentation of connecting RIA Services to a Repository style class layer, independent of what the Repository uses to talk to the database underneath and then the rapid development story will be complete.
I dont think silverlight changes the asp.net MVC story.
MVC lets asp.net be more web standard friendly, and forces projects into a more testable, decoupled structure. The later was the sole responsbility of the architect/developer in webforms.
"Personally, I'm sick and tired of HTML so i'm focusing efforts on Silverlight."
Amen to that. javascript too.
I've been developing web apps for over a decade (Classic asp then jumped to .Net as soon as it was in beta). MCTS x2 and MCPD x2 in asp.net.
While i think ASP.Net MVC is great additon for web site developers, i do think web forms with a strict MVP pattern in UI layer is often still better for enterprise / B2b web applications. (dashboard, administration, reporting etc.)
That all said as i move into more into the integration space, SOA, biztalk, wcf etc.
I really am over the giving a sh1t weather this css property is applied validly in "IE version what ever". or "firefox version whats next" and over dealing with the sometimes great sometime want to shoot myself control hierachy in web forms.
Silverlight 3 is really starting to become relevant for LOB applications, i see it as the major compeditor to webforms, not MVC.
When I first heard about StackOverflow, and heard that it was being built in ASP.Net MVC, I was a little confused. I thought ASP.Net was always an example of an MVC architecture. You have the .aspx page that provides the view, the .aspx.vb page that provides the controller, and you can create another class to be the model. The process for using MVC in ASP.Net is described in this Microsoft article.
So my question is. What Does ASP.Net MVC provide that you wouldn't be able to do with regular ASP.Net (even as far back as ASP.Net 1.1)? It is just fancy URLs? Is it just for bragging rights for MS to be able to compare themselves with new technologies like Ruby On Rails, and say, "We can do that too"? Is there something more that ASP.Net MVC actually provides, rather than a couple extra templates in the File->New menu?
I'm probably sounding really skeptical and negative right now, so I'll just stop. But I really want to know what ASP.Net MVC actually provides. Also, if anybody can tell me why it's Model-View-Controller and not in order of the layers of View-Controller-Model or Model-Control-View depending on whether you are going top to bottom, or vice versa, I'd really appreciate that too.
EDIT
Also, it's probably worth pointing out that I've never really cared for the web forms (AKA server controls) model either. I've only used it minimally, and never on the job.
.aspx doesn't fulfill the MVC pattern because the aspx page (the 'view') is called before the code behind (the 'controller').
This means that the controller has a 'hard dependency' on the view, which is very much against MVC principles.
One of the core benefits of MVC is that it allows you to test your controller (which contains a lot of logic) without instantiating a real view. You simply can't do this in the .aspx world.
Testing the controller all by itself is much faster than having to instantiate an entire asp.net pipeline (application, request, response, view state, session state etc).
Scott Guthrie explained it in this post "ASP.NET MVC Framework"
It enables clean separation of concerns, testability, and TDD by
default. All core contracts within
the MVC framework are interface based
and easily mockable (it includes
interface based
IHttpRequest/IHttpResponse
intrinsics). You can unit test the
application without having to run the
Controllers within an ASP.NET process
(making unit testing fast). You can
use any unit testing framework you
want to-do this testing (including
NUnit, MBUnit, MS Test, etc).
It is highly extensible and pluggable. Everything in the MVC
framework is designed so that it can
be easily replaced/customized (for
example: you can optionally plug-in
your own view engine, routing policy,
parameter serialization, etc). It
also supports using existing
dependency injection and IOC container
models (Windsor, Spring.Net,
NHibernate, etc).
It includes a very powerful URL mapping component that enables you to
build applications with clean URLs.
URLs do not need to have extensions
within them, and are designed to
easily support SEO and REST-friendly
naming patterns. For example, I could
easily map the /products/edit/4 URL to
the "Edit" action of the
ProductsController class in my project
above, or map the
/Blogs/scottgu/10-10-2007/SomeTopic/
URL to a "DisplayPost" action of a
BlogEngineController class.
The MVC framework supports using the existing ASP.NET .ASPX, .ASCX, and
.Master markup files as "view
templates" (meaning you can easily use
existing ASP.NET features like nested
master pages, <%= %> snippets,
declarative server controls,
templates, data-binding, localization,
etc). It does not, however, use the
existing post-back model for
interactions back to the server.
Instead, you'll route all end-user
interactions to a Controller class
instead - which helps ensure clean
separation of concerns and testability
(it also means no viewstate or page
lifecycle with MVC based views).
The ASP.NET MVC framework fully supports existing ASP.NET features
like forms/windows authentication, URL
authorization, membership/roles,
output and data caching,
session/profile state management,
health monitoring, configuration
system, the provider architecture,
etc.
Primarily, it makes it very easy to create testable websites with well defined separations of responsibility. Its also much easier to create valid XHTML UIs using the new MVC framework.
I've used the 2nd CTP (I think they're on five now) to start work on a website and, having created a few web applications before, I have to say its hundreds of times better than using the server control model.
Server controls are fine when you don't know what you're doing. As you start to learn about how web applications should function, you start fighting them. Eventually, you have to write your own to get past the shortcomings of current controls. Its at this point where the MVC starts to shine. And that's not even considering the testability of your website...
No more auto-generated html IDs!!! Anyone doing any sort of javascript appreciates this fact.
ASP.Net with it's code behind is almost MVC - but not - the one big thing that makes it not is that the codebehinds are tied directly to the aspx's - which is a big component of MVC. If you are thinking of the codebehinds as the controller - the should be completely decoupled from the view. The new .NET MVC rounds this out - and brings a complete MVC framework. Though there are existing ones for .NET already (see Spring.NET).
I looked through a couple simple examples such as this one. I can kind of see the difference. However, I don't really see how MVC uncouples the view from the controller. The view still references stuff that's in the controller. I do see how it makes it much easier to test, and that at least in MVC the controller doesn't have any knowledge of the view. And you wouldn't have to process the view to call methods in the controller. I can see that's quite a leap, even though at first glance it may not seem like much.
I do agree with #Will about fighting server controls. I've never worked in a situation where they were actually used, but many people I know who have, have run into quite a few limitations with them.
Article about ASP.net MVC Vs ASP.net Web form
http://weblogs.asp.net/shijuvarghese/archive/2008/07/09/asp-net-mvc-vs-asp-net-web-form.aspx