According to my knowledge angular follows mvc architecture as i can see in the components there is .ts file(model) and .html file(view) but where is the controller?
While using the Angular framework, it is necessary to understand a few basic terms which will constitue the application you create.
Component: A component is a resuable code, which is capable of performing a set of functions or providing a view based on certain inputs. These inputs are optional. The component may additionally emit events in order to inform its parent component of the changes which might have taken place due to a particular action such as a click.
I am not too Keen on using MVC notation but if we were to strictly choose,
the template would represent the View, class is the Controller & the Service (when it used to retrieve data) is the model.
Because Angular is a client side framework, the MVC pattern Angular follows may be called as MVVC (Model, View, View Controller).
There is no such thing controller in angular.
It's only have component, view, model, services
Component: Will play the role of the controller since it handle
logic for the template
Template: Will handle the role view to display the data
Model: Entity model will play the role model in your app
Services: To handle logic for you making http request or doing some side effect in your code
.ts is just the file extension which represents typescript file.
model-name.model.ts is the the common way of naming model. Similarly, component-name.component.ts is for component, component-name.component.html for view and service-name.service.ts for service.
Finally, as the earlier comment says, you can't directly relate MVC with angular architecture.
There is a new MVC mechanism built in Enyo 2.3pre but there is absolutely now docs on it.
The question is how can I bind specific controller to my view?
I have a new kind based on enyo.Control e.g. and I have a controller based on kind: 'enyo.ViewController',
In my controller I have handlers object with a function that should handle event.
If I put view prop into controller with a name of my view that doesn't work since
my handler in controller is not invoked
Can you post some examples on this?
So, the enyo.ViewController, by default, wants to renderInto document.body and we use it to define the enyo.Application kind as the "starting point" for your application.
The Enyo implementation is not necessarily "pure" MVC in the sense that you don't necessarily have to have a proper controller for every view (or enyo.Control) that you are dealing with. Enyo has always had a sort of hybrid view/controller system baked into the controls themselves.
With that being said, recent changes to the implementation removed bubbling of events to a "controller" that owned your "view" as it resulted in a lot of unnecessary overhead. In fact, we're removing the "controllers" block from the enyo.Application kind as an app-global reference to various controllers, and instead you will place them in a components block as typical of "traditional" Enyo development.
So, the current thinking is that your view will handle events as before, but you can bind to properties of various "controllers" and models.
Now, you can still create an MVC architecture if you really want to, but the system is flexible enough to support any of the "separation of concerns" methodologies (MVC, MVP, MVVM, etc.)
My current way of going about things is to create a "controller" for doing some things (like make Web service requests) and then build out models from the data I get back, add them to a collection, and then my views probably have a data-aware control (such as enyo.DataRepeater or enyo.DataList) that will automatically generate some rows for each model.
Take a look at this simple example: http://github.com/clinuz/college-football but, be advised it may not be up-to-date with the switch from app-wide controllers to components. And also, we're removing the "controller" property of the DataRepeater/List and it will change to "collection."
Let me know if you need some more hints. We're aware the lack of documentation is making this difficult while we finalize our implementation. Please bear with us!
You could see my example of to checkout enyo MVC structure.
https://github.com/prajnavantha/enyo-internetradio
Basically we have a model, view and controller.
models: In my case is a simple enyo.Model kind. U can have enyo.collections etc...
Controller: i've used enyo.ModelController.
Views: have the kinds:
The application is not totally MVC. Since my logic is still in views. However you can understand, how to set model and use the componenets.
We have an ASP.NET MVC application that extensively uses AJAX calls.
These AJAX calls send data to our controller method - this controller method requires an argument which is a simple POCO ViewModel class.
In our JavaScript we create an anonymous object whose properties map onto the properties of our ViewModel, and the MVC framework handles all the routing so that in the controller method we get our ViewModel with all the properties.
All well and good.
What we want to do is to put in place a robust way to ensure that the JavaScript anonymous class and the ViewModel class remain in-synch - if a developer changes one then they change the other. We can of course put in comments in both files to say "change one, change the other", and a threat of a severe beating for the developer who fails to keep these in synch, but even with code reviews this is an area that may be missed.
It would be great to have some kind of automated unit test that could check for this, but I'm not aware how to achieve this.
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance
Griff
There is a javascript library called knockoutjs and it is used exactly for what you are trying to achieve. It seems like you are trying to use the MVVM pattern with the ASP.NET MVC framework. With any MVVM pattern, it's a common problem to keep your viewmodel in sync with the view. KnockoutJS allows you to created javascript viewmodels client-side that bind directly to the view. The viewmodels get updated when the view is updated and the view is updated when the viewmodel is updated. KnockoutJS uses a common pattern called the Observer pattern to acheive this. KnockoutJS also provides a mapping plug in so the viewmodels can receive server-side viewmodels in JSON format and update itself, thus updating the view. This is the functionality that you are looking for. The library and the mapping plugin can be found on their website, www.knockoutjs.com. FYI...it is a producation level library. They also have great documentation and examples. I hope this helps. don't re-invent the wheel.
I started reading some Backbone tutorials and I found one thing that astonishes me. Why models are created inside of view? What if I want two different views for one model (what I think MVC is for)? Let's say I need a model Colors, DisplayView view which displays them and ControlsView which allows me to set their configuration. How to handle this?
Backbone does not require that you create your models inside your views - you can (and often should) create your models independently of your views so that they can be shared. Also, just because you create a model inside a view doesn't mean you can't pass a reference to that model to another view and share it that way.
Most likely the tutorials you are reading are very simple and create single models for single views to make the tutorial easier to follow.
I'm building my first Backbone.js app and I'm confused about how much responsibility I'm supposed to give to or hide from my Views.
In my example, I'm building a Rich UI Table (similar to YUI's datagrid) that's dynamically generated from a Collection. In my app I call this an "AppTable". In my understanding of MVC, I would imagine that there'd be some kind of AppTable controller which finds the correct Collection, grabs a "dumb" View and passes to the View whatever information from the Collection it needs to render. In this senario, the View would do little more than take the data provided to it and modify the DOM accordingly, maybe even populating a template or attaching event listeners.
Backbone seems to do away with the idea of having a controller mediate between the View and Collection. Instead a View gets initialized with a reference to a Collection and it is View's responsibility to update itself.
Am I understanding this architecture correctly?
Assuming I do, my question then becomes, what happens when my View needs to do more and more? For example, I want column sorting, drag-and-drop for rows, pagination, searching, table control links (like new, copy, delete row... etc), and more. If we stick with a "smart" View paradigm where the View is connected directly to a Collection, do the above functions become attached to View object?
Thinking through this, I could see the View growing from a simple table wrapper to pretty messy beast with lot of functionality attached to it. So, is the View really a controller in this case?
Your understanding of the architecture is correct. Backbone does not recognize the concept of a "controller" in the traditional MVC sense. (In fact, Backbone used to actually have an object called a Controller, but it has been renamed Router to more accurately describe what it does.)
The functions you list (drag-drop, delete rows, sorting, etc.) would all belong in a View. A view describes what you see and responds to user input. Anything involving an event (a click, a keypress, a submit, etc.) all go inside of a view. But your view should never actually manipulate the data; that should be done by its model. You are correct in thinking that a view acts like a controller, because it packages data and sends it to the model, which will then validate/set/save appropriately. Once those actions have occurred, the view re-renders itself to represent the new version of the data inside the model.
One note of caution: your view should not be too strenuously tied to the DOM. It is Backbone convention to have a top-level DOM element that your view is tied to (e.g., a form or a div) and then deal only with its sub-elements. That is appropriate; in general, things like "remove this link from this div" inside your view are not. If you find your view growing unwieldy, you most likely need to break it into subviews, each with their respective behaviors as components of their whole.
My thoughts on this updated below:
I think Josh gave a good answer, however, in my experience, building a few Backbone apps, even medium-complexity apps do need a separate controller class.
To clarify what I mean about a controller: The functionality between the model (or router) and the view that creates and instantiates the new view class and kills (and unregisters events) on the old one. This functionality might be the same for many views (so a direct one-to-one relationship between views and controllers probably isn't needed) but sometimes one needs to pass in a model or other additional extra values.
Right now, I just have one controller with a few if statements for adding some unique data to certain views for most apps I've built but I'm looking at setting up an architecture where it will check to see if a unique controller exists for that view else it falls back to the standard controller. Nothing special, but should do the job.
Update: After six months of building Backbone apps I realized that routers can be split up and extended just like views. (duh?)
Right off the bat, I knew to make a base view of functionality I know that all my views would need. Similarly, I would make base views for each section, like "profile" pages or "inbox" pages that I know would all use the same functionality. This wasn't so clear to me in the beginning with routers, but the previous name of "Controller" hinted at this.
Most people (as in every example of Backbone I've ever seen on the web) just use one monolithic router instantiation to handle all routes but you can actually have 1-to-1 parity of routers to views, or in my case, a base router for checking user auth and such and then one for each major section. That way if you need to pass in certain models or collections to a router on page load, you don't need to add code to one monolithic router, but instead pull up the unique router for that view. I find this is currently better than creating a separate controller class. The base router can be in charge of last instantiated view, etc, so you can kill the last view before instantiating the new one.
TLDR: Use multiple Routers as controllers. I believe that's what they were meant for and it works well.
I've struggled with the same semantic issues when trying to map out a single-page app. In the end I decided that Backbone is using the wrong name.
When you look at a Backbone app in the browser, the View is not actually a view at all, its el member is the view. Backbone.View is either a view controller or, probably more correctly, a presenter.
Some supporting evidence:
you never see a Backbone.View on the screen, its always the el or $el that is applied to the DOM
a Backbone.View does not receive user input, the DOM element receives input and the events are delegated via the events hash of the "view"
a BackBone.View manages model or collection changes and translates these changes to dumb-view (DOM) elements, then applies them to the actual view, e.g. this.$el.append('<p>Cats!')
I think Backbone.Presenter would be a better name, but I can also see the historical issues with there being a former Backbone.Controller and the amount of work renaming introduces.
I have settled on the following structure for my latest project:
an app controller, extended from Backbone.View, tied to the body element
several model collections to cache data retrieved from the server
a Backbone.Router that translates route changes into Backbone events and triggers them on itself
many app controller methods that handle the router events the app controller listens to
an app controller method prepares any needed models, then initiates a presenter (extended from Backbone.View) and attaches it to the body element
All these parts are initiated and owned by the app controller. The presenters do not know why or where they are on the page and only care for their own DOM elements and the changes they receive from this.model.
Have a look at this part of backbone documentation
http://documentcloud.github.com/backbone/#FAQ-tim-toady
References between Models and Views can be handled several ways. Some
people like to have direct pointers, where views correspond 1:1 with
models (model.view and view.model). Others prefer to have intermediate
"controller" objects that orchestrate the creation and organization of
views into a hierarchy. Others still prefer the evented approach, and
always fire events instead of calling methods directly. All of these
styles work well.
So, backbone does not take that decision for you.
I have a very similar use case (table grid with pagination, ordering, live filtering, and forms with client-side validation, master-details relations, etc.)
In my case, I first started with a Router behaving just like a controller, and quite quickly my code got a bit messy.
So I completely removed Routers (I'll add them back later, but just as an addition) and created my own controller (that in fact works as a presenter). It's just a javascript class, with Backbone.extend backed in to handle inheritance.
The idea is that the view recieves all the data it needs to display itself (model, collection, and the el in which it should be parsed), set up listener on dom events, and then executes controller methods. It never directly modifies the data nor it interacts with other views, it tells the controller to do it.
A view can have subviews, and in that case the subview only interacts with the parent view, or directly with the controller.
So far now it seems to work, but anyway things are not so simple as I expected them to be...
I hope to publish it in the next few days.
A different perspective from the other answers here is that, just because you are using the Backbone framework, that doesn't mean that your entire codebase must be wrapped in Backbone classes.
Personally, my controller is an amalgamation of "raw" Javascript and Backbone routes, and I never use Views for control logic at all. IMHO views are for ... well, view logic, and specifically for wrapping elements. If you're using a view for anything that doesn't directly connect to an HTML element you are (again, IMHO) doing something wrong.
Backbone is awesome, but that doesn't mean that it's a silver bullet that can be applied to everything.