As I see, in the vast majority of PHP frameworks working on the MVC paradigm, all controllers, views and models are made as classes. Do you think it is necessary for a good application?
For example, I use classes for all models (although they are not really that useful everywhere), but controllers and views are not classes. The controller is just a script, the presentation is also just a template (on Blitz'e), well, for it there is a piece of processing any cycles and display conditions in the controller (as if by a view controller). Although, I have not yet experienced and did not know the zen of the PLO, but still, if I don’t get any benefit with the class for C and V, is this normal?
Oleg Arkhipov Oleg Arkhipov
1,185 one 13 35
|
4 answers
The main idea of MVC is to divide all logic into three separate components, respectively, if you, as far as possible, execute this “simple” condition, your application adheres to the MVC paradigm, regardless of whether you use OOP or not.
about
"Only classes will give extensible and reusable code"
"really flexible code is OOP"
The flexibility of the code is almost 100% dependent on the programmer and I would argue with you very strongly in this matter. Yes, of course, the PLO is a great tool, which is sometimes simply vital, but, at the same time, it is often used by someone else, like everywhere else.
In general, I catch stones, but - not OOP makes the code flexible and good, but a programmer, you should never forget about it.
Zowie zowie
12.7k 15 38
|
Only classes will give extensible and reusable code ... so learn and come with you happiness;)
digi digi
474 four ten
|
Well, actually, really flexible code is OOP. You will encounter this when you saw, something big)
m0m0k0 m0m0k0
109 four
- Now I thought carefully and understood - indeed, in my case, only at first it seems that classes are not needed for controllers. But if you think about the need to change something big, as you said, such as a template engine, then you will have a fig. - Oleg Arkhipov
|
In general, in the MVC pattern, there must necessarily be only one class - a router that processes URLs and delivers content based on that URL itself. A bouquet of other classes is your choice. Here only a question about good style, convenience and portability of the code.
Salivan salivan
2,166 2 15 thirty
- fourI wonder why
MVCthen stands forModel-View-Controller, notRouter. - Costantino Rupert - four@Asen - "Details" will not fit in the comments, so read
GoF:) - In the fundamentalMVCpattern there is no mention of routers andurl'ах. Especially sinceMVC,for example, can be used to build the architecture of a desktop application, respectively, theURLis completely out of the question here. - Costantino Rupert - 3@Asen I didn’t quite understand the phrase about the fact that nevertheless
MVCremains the way it was, but oh well :) - Costantino Rupert - one@Construct - if you are talking about a classic of the type index.php, to which all requests come, then this template is called the "front controller" - Zowie
- one@Construct is something like that :) FrontController is just a centralized entry point to your application. Router is what FC should call to determine the future fate of a specific request :) Therefore, you also have a router in one form or another, if you are talking about it. - Zowie
|
CandV:) - Costantino RupertMVC,with the exception of the division of areas of responsibility, is the simplicity of testing. - Models with their factories can be easily tested separately from theController / View.logicController / View.- And then (if the model is well written), then it is triviallymock'аетсяand usually you can immediately write a pack of decent tests on the controller, or even write them before the controller itself, followingTDD.- TestingViewusually either very hard or just pointless, so the correctViewshould be minimal in terms of the amount of logic in it. - Costantino Rupert