The Evolution of MVC

East.fi » Blog Archive » ASP.NET MVC, LINQ and Repository Pattern

East.fi » Blog Archive » ASP.NET MVC, LINQ and Repository Pattern — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:02:38 GMT

Pingback from East.fi » Blog Archive » ASP.NET MVC, LINQ and Repository Pattern

fx micro account

fx micro account — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:12:59 GMT

Results from tests on genetic material from alleged remains of Bigfoot, made public at a news conference in Palo Alto held after the claimed discovery swept the Internet, failed to prove the existence of the mythical half- ape and half- human creature

Weekly Web Nuggets #27

Code Monkey Labs — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:41:28 GMT

Remember to hug a developer today ! General DateTime vs. DateTimeOffset In .NET 3.5 : In part one of his two part series on working with dates & times in .NET 3.5, Dan Rigsby takes a look at the new DateTimeOffset structure. TimeZone vs. TimeZoneInfo

re: The Evolution of MVC

Sohan — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:31:32 GMT

Regaring the MVC2, the diagram shows no relationship between model and view. I think, actually it should be a unidirectional line representing the view knows about the model, otherwise how would it represent the model without even knowing it?

Say, a Customer class belongs to the model. Now, in a Customer data view, the view needs to invoke properties/methods on the model like, customer.FirstName. So, I see that the view needs some knowledge of the model to represent it.

re: The Evolution of MVC

gunteman — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:23:50 GMT

lazar, you bring up an interesting point. The nature (separation of concerns) of MVC is very suitable for plugin driven, composite web applications. But the ASP.NET MVC framework isn't quite there yet. The automatic discovery and routing could be handled already, and it would work if you want "one page=one controller". However, in composite scenarios, we may want "in the left columns, show all 'components' which implement ILeftColumnPlugin". RenderAction could provide this, but it's a feature which is heavily debated and it's also very buggy.

re: The Evolution of MVC

joey — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:17:38 GMT

I agree, there *has* to be a mention to MonoRail in and it's influence on ASP.NET MVC.

re: The Evolution of MVC

Samiq — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:31:19 GMT

ping bac from Samiq Bits: Model-View-Controller: a reference to its basics

[... Today a post on the matter landed my RSS feeds, and thought it was a good start on the basics of MVC - it's always good to have a point of start and move from there.

...

A remarkable thing to point is his distinction to the modern days of the pattern; just as American painter Jackson Pollock once said "new times call for new techniques". And it remains true to the way we solve problems in our industry.]

re: The Evolution of MVC

Scott Marlowe — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:44:22 GMT

Great post. Thanks for the history lesson. ;-) My team is just getting started on MVC; this is a good historical intro.

re: The Evolution of MVC

lazar.mihai — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:52:05 GMT

Since we are talking about Evolution, and since MVC's point is to offer a separation of concerns I was wondering if you might offer a tip about how to get a plugable MVC. For instance to start with a basic app that contains a little configuration and then little modules that can be dropped in the web sites bin folder be discovered and extend that web site with new routes, controllers, models and views.

I'm really interested in viewing this done with ASP.NET MVC, it is the way I view the usefulness of mvc really coming together. Unfortunately the Rails movement keeps promoting a monolithic model that is not very extensible. You are forced to build one app and the replace files to get new values.

It's just a thought that's been haunting me for some time now. I'd be really interested in hearing(reading) what you think of it ?

re: The Evolution of MVC

iFew — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:55:16 GMT

great! mvc model for teach beginner