Implementation of MVC View and Controller communication. (Java) - java

In my class we have been learning about different designs such as MVC and MVP. I am currently writing an application that displays data in a JTable and a custom plot. My question is how should I go about communicating between the View and Controller.
As an example, I have a button that should import data from a file into the Model. What I think I want is the View to notify the controller that the user wants to import a file. The controller then does the necessary logic to do so. How should the view do so? I see a couple of options.
1) Have the controller create an innerclass that gets called whenever a user hits the import button. In this case the controller would have to call a method of the view to see what file the user wanted to import.
2) Have the view detect the event and then call an appropriate method in the controller passing with it the name of the file.
This begs the bigger question of whether or not the view knows about the controller? I know there isn't a correct answer to these things but what would be the best way?


As you may know, the Controller layer is, most of the time, tightly coupled to the View layer.
In the projects I participate as a architect or programmer, I never put business logic in a controller. Because I never saw any technology in which the layer that communicates directly to the view can be ported.
The controller layer should act as a service layer to the view. So yes. The view must know about the controller. And, if the previous statement is true, there's no problem the controller could communicate with the view.
I design my business logics (my #EJB or spring's #Service) in a completely POJO-based layer. That's my portable business layer.
The controller is just a bridge between the view and the business rules layer. It calls business methods, format their responses properly (sometimes) and send back to the view. In this context, the controller can be a web service, a managed bean, a test suite, etc...


One way or the other, the view has to know about the controller. In my experience, events generated by GUI (such as button clicks, drag-and-drops etc.) are best handled in the view itself, since they're particular to the type of view you're using (would differ significantly if your UI was voice-based, for example). Controller should expose APIs like
importFile(String filePath)
with your 1) approach, you'd have to modify the controller whenever you add a new view / change things around in the view. 2) approach is better.


I usually, make Views as Listeners of Controller. In this way I can have several different views of same controller. All views should implement some common interface. I provide access from View to Controller using constructor injection. So it can be smt like this
InterfaceWithMethodThatViewCanCall controller = new ConcreteController(new Model);
SomeView view = new ConcreteSomeView(controller);
controller.addListener(view);
Another way that I currently try to use is communication throw EventBus. I would recommend you to lock at GWT which MVP usage examples.
*Unfortunately I haven't read any good research publication on this topic.


You could potentially create Subjects which will be called by view and listened to by controller. That way view wouldn't know about controller, it would basically communicate with controller via Subjects.
In your example you would have fileImportedSubject and controller would listen to that, and on each emission it would change model accordingly.
So this is a neat way of communication between those two, but i would not recomend it for anything other that some simple apps. Because at some point you will create too many Subjects that controllers need to listen to, and at that point i think that this approach start to represent bad design.

Related

In MVC pattern, can the Model interact / modify the View?

The MVC pattern component interactions are described this way on Wikipedia:
The model is responsible for managing the data of the application. It
receives user input from the controller. The view means presentation
of the model in a particular format. The controller responds to the
user input and performs interactions on the data model objects. The
controller receives the input, optionally validates it and then passes
the input to the model.
I understand that the View should not be able to interact with the Model. But in most of the diagrams I find on the net, MVC is represented like this:
We can see that Model does interact with the View and is able to modify it, and it doesn't make sense.
Doesn't the Model update the Controller, that updates the View?
What am I missing?

The MVC architecture was created in the 1970s. Obviously there was no Internet at that time. In the original version, the Model directly updates the View through data binding, also known as publish/subscribe, also known as the Observer Pattern.
The Gang of Four Design Patterns book describes this MVC architecture in detail. A couple of quotes from that book are in another answer here.
The MVC architecture was very popular, and when the Internet came along, developers wanted to continue using it; but it didn't fit nicely into client/server applications. Thus was born "WebMVC", the version you most commonly see today. WebMVC is typically implemented as a layered architecture, which the original was not.
Confusion ensues when the two architectures are conflated. Often both are referred to simply as MVC. Even worse, related architectures such as MVP and MVVM can be called MVC.
Personally, I find the relationship between desktop MVC and web MVC somewhat like the relationship between Java and JavaScript. The latter piggybacked on the famous name of the former, to implement something significantly different.
related: Is it MVC when the view doesn't interact with the model?

No you can't access view with model directly, you must access controller first
as its MVC Pattern

Diagrams - worth a thousand words! The precise words and context used in the diagram maybe doesn't tell a story of implementation, say in Microsoft MVC 5/6.
A user's interaction is with the controller. Not the view and not the model. Calling an action on a controller will return something (a view, a file, a redirect, etc.).
In the case of returning a view of information, the controller, having worked out what data the user is requesting can retrieve a model that fits the request, pass this into a view, and return the view result of this model.
In the diagram above it isn't clear that the controller is acting as the agent in moving the model into the view. the model does not decide on the view. Why? Depending on what is in the model returned the controller, a different view might be returned. That is why the controller is aptly named. It sits at the centre of affairs making decisions and moving objects around.
So what you are missing is some context about how the process of MVC occurs when implemented

In a MVC pattern, is it ok for a controller to create it own view?

I know that the view isn't supposed to know it's controller, but is it ok for a controller to create its own view or should the view always be passed as a parameter to the controller?
Thank you

With out context is not easy to to answer, but generally speaking no. The controller, view and model should be defined at the interface level (or at least highly abstract) so a controller can be made to control multiple different views which implement the required contract.
Having said that, a controller might be required to create new views, for example in a wizard style setup, but in this case, I would either use a model or factory approach to perform the physical operation, making the controller further flexible

Unsure about using the MVC design pattern

I'm trying to use the MVC design pattern for my project but I'm sort of unsure about how to decouple my program into the classes. The first part of my program is a Login screen which requires the user to enter a their username and password and a start button which checks the details, and there is a button to go to a page where you can add a new user. So I was thinking for my MVC design:
loginpanelView : Just the GUI with the text boxes, labels, buttons etc
loginpanelController:
- implement the actionlistener for the start button here and have a reference to the method checkLogin
- implement actionlistener for add user button here and have reference to a method which switches the panels
loginModel:
- defines the actual method which checks the login
switchpanelModel:
- defines a method which creates a cardlayout system and switches the panels
My understanding is that the controller just makes very general references to what needs to be done i.e. sort of what the user wants to happen, then the model defines the exact method of how to handle this? Would someone mind verifying/ correcting my understanding please? I've read a lot about this design pattern but unfortunately I still don't feel like I have a clear understanding of it. Any help would be much appreciated!
p.s. Sorry! I forgot to include that I'm programming in Java

It sometimes helps to think of MVC in terms of dependencies.
The model repesents what your application does. It has no dependencies on anything. It is what makes your application unique.
The view displays information to the user. This information comes from the model. Therefore, the view has a dependency on the model.
The controller's function is to accept input from the user, dispatch that request to the appropriate model functionality, and (normally) accept the return value and supply it for a view to render. Thus, the controller is usually very tightly coupled to the view(s) that it serves. It also has dependencies on the model.
In this case, the model is your authentication scheme. (In reality, this is not all that much of a model but an entry point in your application, your overall model is something like "process payments", "generate report", "request to create widget", etc.)
You have two views, one to enter authentication information and a second for when an authentication succeeds. The first really does not have any model information, it is solely to collect input (however its design will be based on whatever the authentication model needs, so there is still a dependency here). The second will undoubtedly display a list of available features your application offers or display a landing page etc.
It is the controller's responsibility to mediate these interactions. Therefore, information sent from the first view is received by the controller, dispatched to the authentication model, authentication succeeds or fails, and then the controller chooses the appropriate view to render based on the result.

With such a basic "functional design" it's hard to help you exactly, but you might want to think more about the big picture about what you want.
A user model - database model for a user. Contains a "check login"
method
A login-page View - Form, layout etc
A login controller - Gets the stuff out of the form, tries to log someone in with the method from the user object, and create said user
object
The page view/controllers can be split up ofcourse in several sub-parts, but this might not be a bad place to start.

It seems to me that LoginModel and SwitchPaneModel are not models at all. Model is what you store somewhere. So you will have UserModel and PaneModel. And your controller will implement switchPane method and login method. It's good idea to decouple this method in some separate classes there are lots of methods to perform this task. But I strongly recommend you to find ready solution. Don't invent the bicycle.

A good place to start is here. This is a special case of MVC called Passive View. The first important idea is that the view and the model do not communicate with each other at all. The view only tells the controller about events, and the controller manipulates both the view and the model. A controller can even create new controllers and views (such as for complex modal dialogs). And finally, the model does not communicate with anyone!
So you have the right idea: your loginpanelController listens for button events from the loginpanelView, and then calls the right methods in the model to set the data and validate it.
I think one place you may be having a problem with is switchpanelModel. I don't think you need this. If your loginpanelView is the view with the cards in it, then your loginpanelController should be the one switching the cards.
I think models should be restricted to methods working with its own data, but must have no reference to any GUI element anywhere. Models do not drive the program; controllers do.

Rather then thinking in terms of 'defining' a method, perhaps it is better to think in terms of what is being encapsulated.
For example, loosely, in MVC a view encapsulates primarily the user interface of your program (a login form), a model encapsulates some part of your domain logic (password authentication) and a controller encapsulates the logic that connects a view with a model (it depends there are variation of MVC architecture). The controller is often to some extent coupled to a view (especially if you start adding overtly specific ActionListeners etc) however the model should be quite reusable/exchangable (changing how you validate should not mean you have to change any view/controller that uses it)

Can Model Observe View?

I am developing an application in Java, in my GUI I have several JPanels with a lot of settings on them, this would be the View. There is only one Model in the background of these several JPanels. Normally, I would Observe the Model from the JPanels.
I was just wondering, is it good practice to Observe View from the Model? Because, the user changes the View, and this change must effect my Model. Or am I missing some important principle here? Thank you for your help..

I think its great you are questioning this.
What part you are missing that could help is a Controller.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller for an example.
Basically a controller is the mediator between a model and a view. It "Controls" the application. The only thing that your view should know about is the data that is being passed to it and how to display it. The only thing your Model should know about is data. The Controller ties these two together and contains the business logic that acts on the data and prepares it to pass to the view.
What you get from using this design is a loosley coupled and easy to test application. It really is elegant IMHO.
Cheers,
Mike

That would create unnecessary binding between the model and the view. But also think about an infinite cycle that you could get into.
What if the model was also updated by something other than a view, perhaps a web service? Then a change in the model through the web service will result a change in the view as the view would be observing the model. And also a change in the view will trigger a change in the model as the model is observing the view too. See the recursion here? It's not too difficult to bypass it, but will result in a really bad and unmaintainable design.

To tie your model and view together, one solution as has already been proposed is to add a Controller so that you have the full set of Model-View-Controller components implemented. This introduces a very tight coupling between all three components, which from a unit-test perspective is not really desirable.
An alternative would be to consider the Model-View-Presenter pattern. The Presenter would be the intermediary between the Model and the View, and would update the Model based on any input from the View, and would also be responsible for updating the view based on any changes in the Model. For your unit-tests, you would then be able to substitute a mock-View to test the Model, or a mock-Model to test the view (or mock both to test only the Presenter).

What goes into the "Controller" in "MVC"?

I think I understand the basic concepts of MVC - the Model contains the data and behaviour of the application, the View is responsible for displaying it to the user and the Controller deals with user input. What I'm uncertain about is exactly what goes in the Controller.
Lets say for example I have a fairly simple application (I'm specifically thinking Java, but I suppose the same principles apply elsewhere). I organise my code into 3 packages called app.model, app.view and app.controller.
Within the app.model package, I have a few classes that reflect the actual behaviour of the application. These extends Observable and use setChanged() and notifyObservers() to trigger the views to update when appropriate.
The app.view package has a class (or several classes for different types of display) that uses javax.swing components to handle the display. Some of these components need to feed back into the Model. If I understand correctly, the View shouldn't have anything to do with the feedback - that should be dealt with by the Controller.
So what do I actually put in the Controller? Do I put the public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) in the View with just a call to a method in the Controller? If so, should any validation etc be done in the Controller? If so, how do I feedback error messages back to the View - should that go through the Model again, or should the Controller just send it straight back to View?
If the validation is done in the View, what do I put in the Controller?
Sorry for the long question, I just wanted to document my understanding of the process and hopefully someone can clarify this issue for me!

In the example you suggested, you're right: "user clicked the 'delete this item' button" in the interface should basically just call the controller's "delete" function. The controller, however, has no idea what the view looks like, and so your view must collect some information such as, "which item was clicked?"
In a conversation form:
View: "Hey, controller, the user just told me he wants item 4 deleted."
Controller: "Hmm, having checked his credentials, he is allowed to do that... Hey, model, I want you to get item 4 and do whatever you do to delete it."
Model: "Item 4... got it. It's deleted. Back to you, Controller."
Controller: "Here, I'll collect the new set of data. Back to you, view."
View: "Cool, I'll show the new set to the user now."
In the end of that section, you have an option: either the view can make a separate request, "give me the most recent data set", and thus be more pure, or the controller implicitly returns the new data set with the "delete" operation.

The problem with MVC is that people think the view, the controller, and the model have to be as independent as possible from each other. They do not - a view and controller are often intertwined - think of it as M(VC).
The controller is the input mechanism of the user interface, which is often tangled up in the view, particularly with GUIs. Nevertheless, view is output and controller is input. A view can often work without a corresponding controller, but a controller is usually far less useful without a view. User-friendly controllers use the view to interpret the user's input in a more meaningful, intuitive fashion. This is what it makes it hard separate the controller concept from the view.
Think of an radio-controlled robot on a detection field in a sealed box as the model.
The model is all about state and state transitions with no concept of output (display) or what is triggering the state transitions. I can get the robot's position on the field and the robot knows how to transition position (take a step forward/back/left/right. Easy to envision without a view or a controller, but does nothing useful
Think of a view without a controller, e.g. someone in a another room on the network in another room watching the robot position as (x,y) coordinates streaming down a scrolling console. This view is just displaying the state of the model, but this guy has no controller. Again, easy to envision this view without a controller.
Think of a controller without a view, e.g. someone locked in a closet with the radio controller tuned to the robot's frequency. This controller is sending input and causing state transitions with no idea of what they are doing to the model (if anything). Easy to envision, but not really useful without some sort of feedback from the view.
Most user-friendly UI's coordinate the view with the controller to provide a more intuitive user interface. For example, imagine a view/controller with a touch-screen showing the robot's current position in 2-D and allows the user to touch the point on the screen that just happens to be in front of the robot. The controller needs details about the view, e.g. the position and scale of the viewport, and the pixel position of the spot touched relative to the pixel position of the robot on the screen) to interpret this correctly (unlike the guy locked in the closet with the radio controller).
Have I answered your question yet? :-)
The controller is anything that takes input from the user that is used to cause the model to transition state. Try to keep the view and controller a separated, but realize they are often interdependent on each other, so it is okay if the boundary between them is fuzzy, i.e. having the view and controller as separate packages may not be as cleanly separated as you would like, but that is okay. You may have to accept the controller won't be cleanly separated from the view as the view is from the model.
... should any validation etc be
done in the Controller? If so, how do
I feedback error messages back to the
View - should that go through the
Model again, or should the Controller
just send it straight back to View?
If the validation is done in the View,
what do I put in the Controller?
I say a linked view and controller should interact freely without going through the model. The controller take the user's input and should do the validation (perhaps using information from the model and/or the view), but if validation fails, the controller should be able to update its related view directly (e.g. error message).
The acid test for this is to ask yourself is whether an independent view (i.e. the guy in the other room watching the robot position via the network) should see anything or not as a result of someone else's validation error (e.g. the guy in the closet tried to tell the robot to step off the field). Generally, the answer is no - the validation error prevented the state transition. If there was no state tranistion (the robot did not move), there is no need to tell the other views. The guy in the closet just didn't get any feedback that he tried to cause an illegal transition (no view - bad user interface), and no one else needs to know that.
If the guy with the touchscreen tried to send the robot off the field, he got a nice user friendly message asking that he not kill the robot by sending it off the detection field, but again, no one else needs to know this.
If other views do need to know about these errors, then you are effectively saying that the inputs from the user and any resulting errors are part of the model and the whole thing is a little more complicated ...

The MVC pattern merely wants you to separate the presentation (= view) from the business logic (= model). The controller part is there only to cause confusion.

Here is a good article on the basics of MVC.
It states ...
Controller - The controller translates
interactions with the view into
actions to be performed by the model.
In other words, your business logic. The controller responds to actions by the user taken the in the view and responds. You put validation here and select the appropriate view if the validation fails or succeeds (error page, message box, whatever).
There is another good article at Fowler.

Practically speaking, I've never found the controller concept to be a particularly useful one. I use strict model/view separation in my code but there's no clearly-defined controller. It seems to be an unnecessary abstraction.
Personally, full-blown MVC seems like the factory design pattern in that it easily leads to confusing and over-complicated design. Don't be an architecture astronaut.

Controller is really part of the View. Its job is to figure out which service(s) are needed to fulfill the request, unmarshal values from the View into objects that the service interface requires, determine the next View, and marshal the response back into a form that the next View can use. It also handles any exceptions that are thrown and renders them into Views that users can understand.
The service layer is the thing that knows the use cases, units of work, and model objects. The controller will be different for each type of view - you won't have the same controller for desktop, browser-based, Flex, or mobile UIs. So I say it's really part of the UI.
Service-oriented: that's where the work is done.

Based on your question, I get the impression that you're a bit hazy on the role of the Model. The Model is fixated on the data associated with the application; if the app has a database, the Model's job will be to talk to it. It will also handle any simple logic associated with that data; if you have a rule that says that for all cases where TABLE.foo == "Hooray!" and TABLE.bar == "Huzzah!" then set TABLE.field="W00t!", then you want the Model to take care of it.
The Controller is what should be handling the bulk of the application's behavior. So to answer your questions:
Do I put the public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) in the View with just a call to a method in the Controller?
I'd say no. I'd say that should live in the Controller; the View should simply feed the data coming from the user interface into the Controller, and let the Controller decide which methods ought to be called in response.
If so, should any validation etc be done in the Controller?
The bulk of your validation really ought to be done by the Controller; it should answer the question of whether or not the data is valid, and if it isn't, feed the appropriate error messages to the View. In practice, you may incorporate some simple sanity checks into the View layer for the sake of improving the user experience. (I'm thinking primarily of web environments, where you might want to have an error message pop up the moment the user hits "Submit" rather than wait for the whole submit -> process -> load page cycle before telling them they screwed up.) Just be careful; you don't want to duplicate effort any more than you have to, and in a lot of environments (again, I'm thinking of the web) you often have to treat any data coming from the user interface as a pack of filthy filthy lies until you've confirmed it's actually legitimate.
If so, how do I feedback error messages back to the View - should that go through the Model again, or should the Controller just send it straight back to View?
You should have some protocol set up where the View doesn't necessarily know what happens next until the Controller tells it. What screen do you show them after the user whacks that button? The View might not know, and the Controller might not know either until it looks at the data it just got. It could be "Go to this other screen, as expected" or "Stay on this screen, and display this error message".
In my experience, direct communication between the Model and the View should be very, very limited, and the View should not directly alter any of the Model's data; that should be the Controller's job.
If the validation is done in the View, what do I put in the Controller?
See above; the real validation should be in the Controller. And hopefully you have some idea of what should be put in the Controller by now. :-)
It's worth noting that it can all get a little blurry around the edges; as with most anything as complex as software engineering, judgment calls will abound. Just use your best judgment, try to stay consistent within this app, and try to apply the lessons you learn to the next project.

Here is a rule of thumb that I use: if it is a procedure that I will be using specifically for an action on this page, it belongs in the controller, not the model. The model should provide only a coherent abstraction to the data storage.
I've come up with this after working with a large-ish webapp written by developers who thought they were understood MVC but really didn't. Their "controllers" are reduced to eight lines of calling static class methods that are usuall called nowhere else :-/ making their models little more than ways of creating namespaces. Refactoring this properly does three things: shifts all the SQL into the data access layer (aka model), makes the controller code a bit more verbose but a lot more understandable, and reduces the old "model" files to nothing. :-)

The controller is primarily for co-ordination between the view and the model.
Unfortunately, it sometimes ends up being mingled together with the view - in small apps though this isn't too bad.
I suggest you put the:
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e)
in the controller. Then your action listener in your view should delegate to the controller.
As for the validation part, you can put it in the view or the controller, I personally think it belongs in the controller.
I would definitely recommend taking a look at Passive View and Supervising Presenter (which is essentially what Model View Presenter is split into - at least by Fowler). See:
http://www.martinfowler.com/eaaDev/PassiveScreen.html
http://www.martinfowler.com/eaaDev/SupervisingPresenter.html

also note that each Swing widget is can be considered to contain the three MVC components: each has a Model (ie ButtonModel), a View (BasicButtonUI), and a Control (JButton itself).

You are essentially right about what you put in the controller. It is the only way the Model should interact with the View. The actionperformed can be placed in the View, but the actual functionality can be placed in another class which would act as the Controller. If you're going to do this, I recommend looking into the Command pattern, which is a way of abstracting all of the commands that have the same receiver. Sorry for the digression.
Anyway, a proper MVC implementation will have the following interactions only:
Model -> View
View -> Controller
Controller -> View
The only place where there may be another interaction is if you use an observer to update the View, then the View will need to ask the Controller for the information it needs.

As I understand it, the Controller translates from user-interface actions to application-level actions. For instance, in a video game the Controller might translate "moved the mouse so many pixels" into "wants to look in such and such a direction. In a CRUD app, the translation might be "clicked on such and such a button" to "print this thing", but the concept is the same.

We do it thusly, using Controllers mainly to handle and react to user-driven input/actions (and _Logic for everything else, except view, data and obvious _Model stuff):
(1) (response, reaction - what the webapp "does" in response to user)
Blog_Controller
->main()
->handleSubmit_AddNewCustomer()
->verifyUser_HasProperAuth()
(2) ("business" logic, what and how the webapp "thinks")
Blog_Logic
->sanityCheck_AddNewCustomer()
->handleUsernameChange()
->sendEmail_NotifyRequestedUpdate()
(3) (views, portals, how the webapp "appears")
Blog_View
->genWelcome()
->genForm_AddNewBlogEntry()
->genPage_DataEntryForm()
(4) (data object only, acquired in _construct() of each Blog* class, used to keep all webapp/inmemory data together as one object)
Blog_Meta
(5) (basic data layer, reads/writes to DBs)
Blog_Model
->saveDataToMemcache()
->saveDataToMongo()
->saveDataToSql()
->loadData()
Sometimes we get a little confused on where to put a method, in the C or the L. But the Model is rock solid, crystal clear, and since all in-memory data resides in the _Meta, it's a no-brainer there, too. Our biggest leap forward was adopting the _Meta use, by the way, as this cleared out all the crud from the various _C, _L and _Model objects, made it all mentally easy to manage, plus, in one swoop, it gave us what's being called "Dependency Injection", or a way to pass around an entire environment along with all data (whose bonus is easy creation of "test" environment).

Categories