The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

MSDN Blog Postings » The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

MSDN Blog Postings » The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick! — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:40:03 GMT

PingBack from http://msdnrss.thecoderblogs.com/2007/11/22/the-aspnet-mvc-framework-using-the-wcsf-as-a-yardstick/

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

Sync — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:03:15 GMT

Thanks.. Which one is better? Yah. It might be a lit bit hard to say. so, which framework we should use in which situation?

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

simonince — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:10:03 GMT

Sync;

Good question, and one that I purposely avoided :-)

My view is that often the biggest benefit to selecting a pattern is that you have made the selection - i.e. all developers use a common pattern, and the application has a predefined "shape". This helps prevent the nightmare that can arise when people do things in different ways in the same application. Assuming this chosen pattern meets your needs (unit testing, well defined class responsibilities, etc) then half the battle is won already. Therefore I don't think there is a massive amount to separate MVC from MVP (as patterns alone) - it may even be personal preference.

Both frameworks aid with unit testing, application structure, and so on.

But at the moment the WCSF is out there in the wild, and the MVC framework is not. Plus the WCSF adds much more - guidance around page flow, authorisation support, automated template code generation, bundles to help with responsive UI's, etc.

Therefore at the moment I would choose to use the WCSF. [Note that this is my own personal view and not an official Microsoft statement].

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

Arun — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:14:28 GMT

One big difference in WCSF and MVC framework is, WCSF(MVP) looks at the view, as the one that can handle input and outputs functionality using the webforms/Viewstate/postback features. A presenter doesnt not worry about handling the user inputs/interactions.

With ASP.NET MVC framework, Controller is used to handle the user interactions, and so, I guess the aspx based url, and view states are no longer needed , and instead controller based clean URLs handle the user inputs. And with outputs, as with Original MVC pattern, output responsibility is with View, and ViewPage renderView method handles it.

So, I think moving away from postback architecture is indeed a good sign, to maintain a MVC purity, and not making a new breed of MVC.

With Original MVC Pattern, the View does maintain the direct association with model, and model indeed can be modified by the view. So, if Asp.NET MVC framework would not allow a view to modify model, that is a significant change responsibilities in MVC pattern isnt it ?

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

simonince — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:46:41 GMT

Arun;

My view is that making changes to the model is generally done in response to a user action, and therefore that responsibility lies with a controller... so there is not a deviation from the classic MVC pattern. I see views as interacting with the model primarily to render the data, which still fits with the MVC framework (model data is passed to a view to be rendered).

There is a big benefit in my mind in keeping most interaction with the model (i.e. business logic calls) in the controller - as you can then switch out different views (e.g. html or xml/rss) without duplicating logic. It also enables views to be easily reused by different controllers, that may get similar data from different sources.

I'd recommend reading the article I linked to - it makes some interesting comments on MVC misconceptions, though, so I see where you're coming from.

One minor point I would make - although in MVP the aspx page (view) receives the user input, it is the presenter that responds to it (usually the view calls a method on the presenter, or raises an event) - the view does not directly interact with the business logic / model (other than rendering it). Hope that makes sense.

As always though, how people implement these patterns is likely to vary slightly!

Simon

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

Arun — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:16:41 GMT

Thanks for your reply Simon.

Yes I agree with your comments on view. "I see views as interacting with the model primarily to render the data, which still fits with the MVC framework (model data is passed to a view to be rendered)". Agreed that does falls in place with original MVC pattern.

If model data is passed to the view, then why do we need to implement multiple views in your example page with list and details. Why not the same view, that contains the list, also pull the details data from the model data thats being passed to it ? Or am i missing some implementation details here ?

And yea, the reference link you provided, I got that from pnpguidance, its awesome work. It is the base to my understanding on MVP and MVC.

Thanks again.

Arun.

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

simonince — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:45:53 GMT

Arun;

That is a good point to make. I don't see any reason why you could not have a single view instead of two to render a master/details screen (and in some cases you want the list and the details visible at the same time so it makes more sense). I was simply using it as an example as to how it could work well to separate view responsibilities; keeping views simple and focused increases your chances of reusing them, could simplify maintenance, etc.

One option here is to design the list and details sections as two User Controls. That way you can either compose them into a single screen, or render them individually (as the RenderView method can handle User Controls or whole pages). This could also work well in an AJAX scenario to partially render the sections of the screen instead of the whole page every time.

Good comments!

Simon

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

shashi — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:55:02 GMT

i want to know whether it is possible to combine two techs. means i want to take advantage of a ObjectBuilder , CompositionContainer of a WCSF and I want to use MVC too so that I can select or change View at runtime. I moved Controller to shell module but i am not geting how to specify that controller name in Route onject in Application_Start event handler..

please help me, If u have any solution or Idea let me know ...

Thanks

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

simonince — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:57:23 GMT

Shashi -

it depends what your objectives are.

To use ObjectBuilder you could create a custom Controller Factory or View Factory (depending on what needs to be "built up"), and use the pure MVC framework.

If you want to select the View at runtime, this is difficult in the WCSF (without using Response.Redirect etc) as it is the View that is directly URL addressable. If you wanted to add a layer of indirection here by introducing a controller, do you really want to combine the MVC and MVP patterns? I think this could be rather confusing.

To answer your primary question, though, to wire in the MVC framework bits into an existing solution you need to be adding references to the assemblies, and add configuration entries for the Http Module and Http Handlers that the framework uses. I've not tried this though, so I'm not certain what the results would be.

Hope that helps.

Simon

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

simonince — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:36:56 GMT

Shashi -

just found the post below which may help you too!

http://www.pnpguidance.net/Post/ASPNETMVCFrameworkCompositeWebApplicationBlockCWAB.aspx

Simon

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

Ork — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:14:38 GMT

Good read, but having reviewed both ASP.NET MVC and WCSF I think the composition level (by default) is way too high - what ever happened to component level composition like web parts model.

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

simonince — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:14:22 GMT

Ork;

interesting comment - I'd be interested to hear more about how you feel this applies. My own personal view is that a web part model is very suited to the kind of composition required in portals - e.g. pulling in data from many different sources and coordinating some communication between parts. But for full enterprise-class systems I find that raising the abstraction to modules is beneficial. There's nothing to stop each module from being composed of smaller parts of course!

Also I would say this comment mainly applies to the WCSF - the MVC framework doesn't really dictate much about composition, other than perhaps the subtle impact the relationship between controllers and views might have.

Post your thoughts - I'm sure there are things I haven't considered so am keen to understand!

Simon

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

Joe — Sat, 31 May 2008 05:48:21 GMT

I have the same confusion as your article mentioned: Why 2 Asp.net patterns and what are the differences. And why one is in WCSF and the other is not?! (Is Mircosoft endosing one over the other!?!) By the way, your article is very good and clear comparison between WCSF and the asp.net MVC. My understanding is clearer after reading your article. Not sure if I am getting it right though. I believe WCSF’s MVP pattern actual is similar to the MVC with Page Controller and the Asp.net MVC is with Front Controller since all request is funnel through by URL routing and no post back allowed where as WCSF MVP is responding to each request at a page level.

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

simonince — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:59:49 GMT

Joe -

I don't think Microsoft are endorsing one over the other; in many ways MVP was born out of the constraints of running within the existing ASP.NET pipeline and infrastructure (one of the aims of the WCSF was to fit in with existing ASP.NET development as much as possible), but the ASP.NET MVC framework actually replaces the pipeline itself, so had more scope to be radical.

I think each brings something different - the WCSF brings structure to WebForms, and helps rapidly write applications using well known patterns - the MVC framework is more of a "purist" approach, catering to the crowd that do not need really rich and simple WinForm-like development, but instead are keen on maximum control of their HTML etc. Hope that helps!

Also, I think you're right - MVP is a little more like MVC with Page Controller rather than MVC with Front Controller, and the ASP.NET MVC Framework does indeed use the Front Controller approach.

Simon

WCSF Application Architecture 3: Model View Presenter

Simon Ince's Blog — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:02:54 GMT

WCSF Application Architecture 3: Model View Presenter This article is part of a series; · WCSF Application

More MVC vs MVP

Simon Ince's Blog — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:24:11 GMT

Phil Haack , currently famous for working on the ASP.NET MVC Framework , has just blogged a great article

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

Mohamoud Ibrahim — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:20:30 GMT

Great post and great comments guys, really learned alot.

Dino Esposito classic asp.net to the new ASP.net MVC framework this way:

ASP.NET MVC Framwork

----------------------------------

Request Model PostBack REST

Data Model Code-behind MVC

If I add WCSF to mix; do I have correct?

ASP.NET MVC WCSF Framework

----------------------------------

Request Model PostBack REST PostBack

Data Model Code-behind MVC MVP

Glad to hear from you.

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

simonince — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:18:33 GMT

Mohamoud;

yes that looks right, although I haven't seen Dino's post on that to be honest. I'm not sure about the terminology "data model"; I'd be more inclined to name it "User Interface Pattern" or something like that, as the "model" (i.e. the part of the pattern that describes the business entities and logic, and therefore which includes the "data") is part of MVC or MVP.

Hope that makes sense!

Simon

re: The ASP.NET MVC framework, using the WCSF as a yardstick!

Mohamoud — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:53:15 GMT

Wow, sorry for all my typos and not soo good looking post above ;-) but here is Dino's article I was talking about:

http://dotnetslackers.com/articles/aspnet/AnArchitecturalViewOfTheASPNETMVCFramework.aspx

and if I add WCSF to the mix:

|Classic | |

|ASP.NET |MVC |WCSF

-------------|-----------|----|--------

Request Model|PostBack |REST|PostBack

UI Pattern |Code-behind|MVC |MVP

tkx Simmon for the clarification ...

WCSF Application Architecture 3: Model View Presenter

UK Application Development Consulting — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:14:19 GMT

This is part 3 of the WCSF Application Architecture series by Simon Ince this post explores the Model