In traditional UI development - developer used to create a
View using window or usercontrol or page and then write all logical code (Event handling, initialization and data model, etc.) in code behind and hence they were basically making code as a part of view definition class itself. This approach increased the size of my view class and created a very strong dependency between my UI and data binding logic and business operations. In this situation, no two developers can work simultaneously on the same view and also one developer's changes might break the other code. So everything is in one place is always a bad idea for maintainability, extendibility and testability prospective. So if you look at the big picture, you can feel that all these problems exist because there is a very tight coupling between the following items.- View (UI)
- Model (Data displayed in UI)
- Glue code (Event handling, binding, business logic)
Definition of Glue code is different in each pattern. Although view and model is used with the same definition in all patterns.
In case of MVC it is controller. In case of MVP it is presenter. In case of MVVM it is view model.
MVC: Three components – View (your UI), Model (your business entities / data – that view is displaying) & Controller (contains the logic that alters the model depending on the action triggered by UI, typically implementing a Use Case). It’s widely known that MVC is a compound pattern (View and Controller have Strategy implementation, View itself can be a Composite implementation & View and Model are synched through Observer). In this case Controller doesn’t know anything about View, and the idea is that a View can switch Controllers (for instance depending upon who has logged to the system) & a single controller can be used by multiple Views. View subscribes to the changes done to the model & hence both are sync from the data perspective. One of the disadvantages of MVC is that it’s difficult to unit test. Controller manipulates the data but how about asserting those changes from a view perspective. For instance on click of a button you raise an event to controller, and controller modifies the value in model. This value modification changes the font size / color in View. Unit testing this scenario is slightly difficult in MVC.
MVC: Three components – View (your UI), Model (your business entities / data – that view is displaying) & Controller (contains the logic that alters the model depending on the action triggered by UI, typically implementing a Use Case). It’s widely known that MVC is a compound pattern (View and Controller have Strategy implementation, View itself can be a Composite implementation & View and Model are synched through Observer). In this case Controller doesn’t know anything about View, and the idea is that a View can switch Controllers (for instance depending upon who has logged to the system) & a single controller can be used by multiple Views. View subscribes to the changes done to the model & hence both are sync from the data perspective. One of the disadvantages of MVC is that it’s difficult to unit test. Controller manipulates the data but how about asserting those changes from a view perspective. For instance on click of a button you raise an event to controller, and controller modifies the value in model. This value modification changes the font size / color in View. Unit testing this scenario is slightly difficult in MVC.
MVP: Again three components. But dependencies change (look at arrows in the diagram). Over here we replace Controller with Presenter (one which presents the changes done in model back to view). The main difference between both is that Presenter refers back to the view while Controller doesn’t. Normal pattern found here is to create an abstraction of the View (in terms of properties / events) & Presenter refers to it. This makes the mocking of View much easier & hence the Unit Testing aspect. Presenter here hence takes the responsibility of not only manipulating model but also updating the view. Of course the implementations of MVP differ in real world in terms of how much thin the view is, some prefer keeping basic logic still inside view & taking complex logic in presenter, while others prefer keeping the entire logic in Presenter.
