> Personally, I haven't found much reason to keep the > view and the controller separate, as there's almost > always a one-to-one relationship between the two, > so I'm not /really/ using MVC. And I wouldn't say > that MVC (or M-VC) is appropriate for every > application, but if you're having problems with > duplication it's a great help.
Patrick, Thanks for your feedback. We have come to the same conclusion as you have above. Nice to see we aren't the only ones. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick McElhaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: RE: Can you give me the 'why's' of MVC? > You're right that the latest MVC fad is basically > the same as regular old Fusebox, especially in FuseQ. > > It basically allows us to get around the limitations > imposed by the simple circuit->fuseaction->fuse > relationship. For example, if I have three fuses > that are used together in several fuseaction the > duplication drives me nuts. There's a strong > temptation to put them all behind another fuse, but > the practice of fuses including fuses is frowned > upon. With MVC I can put them all in a fuseaction > and call that fuseaction instead. > > It allows us to reuse code across circuits without > breaking the encapsulation of each circuit. For > example, our intranet has over 70 circuits and > probably half of them need to find information about > a user. I would hate to put the qry_user fuse in all > of those circuits, and I also don't want one > circuit messing with another circuit's fuse files. > I'm also not a big fan having separate block/queries > directories. Instead, I have a user circuit with > fuseactions like getUser, updateUser, addUser, etc > that the other circuits use. I don't have to keep > track of where the circuit is physically located, > and I can change the implementation (fusefiles) > without affecting the public interface (fuseactions). > > My fuseactions are a lot smaller and easier to test > now. The ability to point to a "model" fuseaction in > my browser, along with some attributes in the URL, > and have the results dumped to the browser is a > tremendous help. > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: craig girard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:46 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Can you give me the 'why's' of MVC? > > > > > > I have been working with MVC for the past couple of days and > > what has dawned > > on me is that I am really replicating what I have been doing > > in regular > > fusebox all along. Separating code into views, models, and > > controllers. > > The difference seems to be now I am separating them into > > their respective > > directories, which I am not seeing the need for. > > > > This has got me wondering is MVC truley solving a problem, or > > is it just the > > latest 'thing' to do? > > > > When faced with this question I always ask "why should I use this > > 'technology'?" And many time comes out that its overkill for > > what I wanna > > do. > > > > Why do I want 3 separate directory structures? > > Why is model/view/controller an advantage over basic fusebox? > > > > Can you give me the whys? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Craig > > > > > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
