I'm slowly getting into MVC, but it's still relatively new to me. From what I've discovered by doing a few tutorials, MVC provides an interface for communication between the database and the website and in general allows for better organization of the code.
Are there other significant advantages to using an MVC structure? What would be an example of a time when you wouldn't want to user MVC, even if you are communicating with a database?
Thank you!
Technically speaking, MVC has nothing to do with whether or not an application uses a database. MVC is about separating concerns so that the things that represent business concerns and logic [the models] are separated from how the UI is displayed [the views]. It doesn't matter whether or not your models are stored in a database, on the filesystem, in memory, or not even persisted at all.
As for when would you NOT want to use MVC, that's harder to say. MVC is about separating concerns to simplify the construction and management of a software system. If you don't need those benefits, or if you get greater benefits through a different pattern (for instance, if you have a team that's highly skilled in a non-MVC based framework), then don't use it. It's certainly possible to build good software without using the MVC pattern, the pattern just helps.
The pro/con list in this blog may help you understand when MVC makes the most sense to use.
http://www.ytechie.com/2008/10/aspnet-mvc-pros-and-cons.html
You can take a look at this video: Choosing the right programming model.
Since you indicated you're a beginner with MVC I suggest you take a look at these informative tutorials.
Related
I watched a little introduction into ASP.NET Dynamic Data, and I noticed this option to create a data driven website for the first time. I have a database with a few tables, just created a Dynamic Data application out of my database and well... my application with a lot of nicely looking web pages, navigation between them and all kinds of CRUD operations was finished after 3 minutes.
OK, seriously, it isn't finished of course. There is a lot of custom logic to introduce, design to change, and also pages or relationships to remove I don't want actually to see in the web application.
But now I am wondering if ASP.NET Dynamic Data is at least a viable starting point or do I better start from scratch and create page by page? I could imagine that it might be useful to create a quick database maintenance web interface but is it good for a very customized web application? Is it in the end more complicated to modify the scaffold than building up everything from the ground?
I'm very interested in your experiences or recommendations regarding Dynamic Data! Thanks in advance!
I could never wrap my ahead around it enough to get any use out of it. At first, I thought this was Microsoft's answer to Ruby on Rails, and I was looking for the same benefit. I don't it comes close to having the same benefits. When I then compare it to a CMS (DotNetNuke, Sharepoint, Drupal, etc) it then looks really underpowered. Compared to ASP.NET MVC, it seems like going the wrong way from basic ASP.NET (MVC is removing bad abstractions from ASP.NET, while DD is adding even more abstractions).
Personally I'd rather build something from scratch in ASP.NET MVC, though my day job is regular ASP.NET. I'm also learning Drupal as I haven't found the sweet spot with ASP.NET based CMSes. One thing at at a jobsite you're going to want to use technologies everyone else knows. So I think that limits where knowing Dynamic Data is generally useful, as basically any legacy application won't be using it and you're unlikely to find a team with existing ASP.NET Dynamic Data experience.
The quick scaffolding is spiffy but at the end of the day I don't think it will make web development easier.
I very like ASP.NET Dynamic Data as it is a fast way for creating data driven applications. Customization is not a complicated task.
I wrote a corporate website with this technology from the scratch - it takes appr. 2 months for all. So my point of view that this is a good starting point for web applications development.
if your archetecture resembles ASP.NET Dynamic Data or DotNetNuke or some other starter kit, go for it, if
application is small to medium sized
you do not have strict deadlines
you are learning the technology.
otherwise or when you will be skilled in particular technology, you will prefer yourself working from scratch as it gives you more freedom and space for the implementation of ideas.
For e.g, one reason for the breakthrough for Asp.Net MVC had was many .Net developers wanted freedom over the development / architecture / flow and rendering (HTML) of the product they were building. Asp.Net WebForms does provide solid and vast grounds for swift development and templates but developers had to go according to the architecture. This freedom is available under MVC and developers can make use of nearly all Libraries and skill set available and go their own way.
one successful sample is Stackoverflow.com itself
hope this helps
I realize that ASP.NET MVC has all the hype. I have my doubts that I need it, but wanted to explain my potential project:
This is an internal LAN application. It is doing CRUD operations and a little reporting.
The user base is small (< 12 people) and there is not tons of data
There is not a huge number of screens (Maybe 20)
I don't care about URL rewriting
My view state is typically small (like a DealID or ClientID)
Even though I don't have a full mastering of Page Lifecycle, I do understand Postbacks and don't have a problem coding for it.
I believe in Layering and am familiar with the M-V-P pattern and other patterns.
I want to do some Unit testing, but heck 25-50% coverage is better then what most apps.
The app will have a little AJAX for search screens, but don't see it being overkill.
So what do you think? While using the "sexy" technology is cool, is it necessary?
No, it's not necessary. It sounds like you've already made up your mind. If the application isn't all that critical and you're more familiar with web forms, just do it the way you know how to. I think ASP.NET MVC is worth learning, but it isn't the right solution for every project. Go and try it out in your free time so that when this situation comes up again, you'll have more options available to you.
No you don't strictly need MVC but are you asking whether you should learn something new or use what you already know for an internal project? An internal project might be the perfect place to try out something new.
As was said, it's not necessary. However, if you're doing a basic CRUD application (and it sounds like you are), MVC would make that nice and easy.
You mention you're moving to project management. Do you think any of the projects or products you look into will be using MVC? If so then at least you'll have some familiarity by learning it with this small application. This means it is necessary, if you need it as a PM, but you do not require it just to build the app. It could run with anything you choose.
Incidentally, ASP.NET MVC is new, not MVC, not by any stretch of the imagination. I know you did not say it was, but you mention hype. I cannot help but think Java and other folks are saying, "We've been doing this for years and years."
You can use both.
Create a Visual Studio Web Application (not a website), and you'll be able to use both if needed.
You'll just need to add a reference to MVC and setup the routing.
Webforms and MVC
It's not necessary, no, but there's no reason why you can't use webforms or MVC.
If you feel comfortable working with webforms, then go down the webforms approach. If, however, you feel the need to broaden your knowledge of architectural patterns, then ASP.NET MVC is a pretty nice thing to use.
If unit testing is important to you, go with MVC. Everything else you mentioned, though, points to WebForms.
I'm thinking about going into the ASP.NET MVC scene.
I've seen the videos at http://asp.net/learn, but they havn't impressed me.
So can you answer me, what makes MVC "so impressive", and why does it make life better and easier?
ASP.NET MVC is much more in tune with the technology on which it is layered. ASP.NET Forms attempted to pretend that there was a nice fat stateful infrastucture as there is in a standard WinForms app. However HTTP and Web servers do not like fat stateful applications.
ASP.NET MVC allows for a separation of concerns. The request is processed by a controller not a "Web Page", it chooses how to respond and what UI is needed to present that response. The controller builds the set of structured data needed by its choice of view then hands over that data to the view.
This division allows much easier testing, the view is merely a means to present what should be a complete well munged chunk of data. Its way easier to build a test for something which takes structured data in and responds with structured data.
ASP.NET Forms is almost impossible to test in this way (especially without expensive tools claiming to achieve it). Hence an MVC application is easier to get right and much easier to ensure it stays right by consistently running existing tests.
Caveat: The major draw back of ASP.NET MVC right now is lack of solid documentation. I've been assured that docs are coming "soon".
Have you ever worked on a large project that had great intentions when it started but 3 years later was a complete mess?
MVC is a just pattern it can be misused the same as ASP.NET is misused. It is just harder to do.
Model–View–Controller (MVC) is an
architectural pattern used in software
engineering. Successful use of the
pattern isolates business logic from
user interface considerations,
resulting in an application where it
is easier to modify either the visual
appearance of the application or the
underlying business rules without
affecting the other.
It allows you to separate your logic in a way that makes sense to most people. While at the same time it lends itself well to testing.
If yes, when? and how much time do you think that the process will take to migrate your current projects (if it's the case)?
ASP.NET MVC is not meant to replace WebForms. They are different technologies and are designed for different purposes.
Making a blanket statement of saying that I'll only use one and not the other is a very narrow minded approach, as you're missing the pros and cons of each technology.
Microsoft is commited to both technologies going forward and there are quite a few sweet new features coming in WebForms 4.0.
I'll be using WebForms and ASP.NET MVC, but looking at the needs of the current project so that I make the right decision for the current implementation
I've been using it for a few months now. I absolutely love MVC. Converting existing projects may not be realistic, depending on available time. As I see it, Web Forms simulates windows forms development for the old VB crowd. While MVC doesn’t pretend it’s something it’s not and follows the Http process more closely.
A few plusses I see in MVC
1) It’s testable with unit tests
2) Direct control over Html. We make websites, how do we accept not being able to control all our html?
3) No viewstate baggage
4) No control tree to waste time rendering
5) Automatic binding of a modal from a form post
6) It can be rather sexy
And a few disadvantages
1) No more web controls (and many rich 3rd party controls are lost)
2) Slower to develop in
3) Large learning curve
4) Still in Beta (CTP soon though)
Yes for my new projects. But not for current production software.
Yes, in as orderly a fashion as possible.
MVC opens .NET up to the world of Best Practices for Agile development. It specifically addresses concerns about Separation of Concerns, and coupling/cohesion. It also lets us write more-portable software without creating a dependency on any vendor-specific references or components.
It unquestionably is a successor to WebForms, along with WPF, regardless of whatever PR you might read.
The Wikipedia entry is pretty clear, even before being updated for Microsoft's MVC.
Assuming you prefer ASP.NET MVC to Web Forms, it's worth it for a system that's in active development/maintenance.
They can coexist side-by-side, so it's possible to migrate parts of the application (new ones, or selected old ones) and see how it works out. If it's a success, keep going.
An "all or nothing" migration could be disastrous, though - investing a lot without quick feedback is a huge risk.
WebForms are for rich UIs
These can be done just the same with MVC or Webforms. A year from now rich MVC based toolkits will arrive (technically they're already here if you like YUI, ExtJS, etc.) and make this argument null and void.
migrate your current projects
Migrating an existing WebForms project to MVC doesn't make a lot of sense. What are you going to gain? Using MVC for a new project however can make a lot of sense depending on your requirements.
I was never really fond of WebForms to begin with so getting to work with MVC was like a breath of fresh air to me. I've always much preferred the separation of concerns as I could work on the chunks that I was really good at developing, the logic and the data access, and leave the presentation work to the members of the team who had that natural ability. I think the MVC library makes it easier for teams to work together on individual pages as one person can work on the controller and the other person can work on the view.
All that being said, when I'm working on projects where I don't need to focus as much on the coding and it is more display oriented, I still go back to the WebForms because they are so much easier to implement and get up and running. Both have their places and I don't think one will ever supersede the other.
I've been using ASP.NET MVC for several months now and I prefer it to Web Forms. However, I don't see myself migrating my existing projects to MVC. For me, it would be rather pointless. However, all of my new ASP.NET projects will (or should be) developed using MVC, as it is a much better (and more flexible) framework.
Personnaly I restricted ASP.NET MVC for lightweight Front Office Web Sites.
But still using ASP.NET WebForms for Righ BackOffice Applications to take advantage of rich custom controls and some of other nice features of Web Forms.
Another plus for mvc is that javascript like jquery is much easier to implement, so if you plan on using a lot of js, mvc might be the way to go.
No, there's no reason to. It's an alternative style, one I am not fond of. But that's just my opinion; a lot of people like it and I hope it works well for them.
As already said, they're not mutually exclusive, and I play to make good use of both.
IMO MVC is better for web sites, while WebForms are better for web applications.
For example, this site is a perfect showcase for where ASP.NET MVC is a good choice because of the nature of the site and what needs to be accomplished; other good examples would be a web store, or a project management site (like Basecamp), or a social network.
If you were developing a corporate CRM/ERP system, however, I'd stick with WebForms to get rich controls and a more "desktop-like" programming model, since a CRM application is traditionally the domain of a desktop application.
ASP.NET MVC fits my desired style of development better, but I'm wary of trusting myself to it whilst it's not been RTM. It also is different enough that our legacy code will not work with it. If we had been practising Domain-Driven Development things might have been easier, but ...
My team is considering building our next web app using the ASP.NET MVC framework. I am slightly hesitant, as are some others, because it is still only in beta. I really want to dive in because it seems to be a great way of providing clear separation of concerns and improving testability.
Should I take the plunge now, while MVC is still in beta, or hold off for a release candidate?
From some of the responses, I think I need to clarify my question a bit. My primary concern is whether to go with a product that's still in beta, not webforms vs. mvc. The concern is mainly because of the fear that we end up using some functionality in the beta version that gets changed / deprecated / not supported in the final release.
However, I do appreciate the perspective on webforms vs. mvc. It just doesn't get at the heart of my question.
It's a pretty simple decision tree, really.
Choose ASP.NET MVC if you...
Care deeply about URLs
Care deeply about your HTML
Want true separation of concerns
Want testability through and through
Want flexibility of view engines (ASPX, NVelocity, NHaml, etc)
Choose WebForms if you...
Enjoy the stateful abstraction of WebForms (ViewState)
Don't mind PostBack model
Prefer components that you can "drag & drop" on a page
For me, the answer will 99% be ASP.NET MVC, because I think it is a much better match for the web. I think the ajax story is much cleaner as well, and I have complete control over my HTML & URLs. On top of all of that, I can test-drive my website (controllers) quite easily.
Yes, I know you can achieve clean URLs in WebForms, and you can have clean(er) HTML through Control Adapters, and you can achieve a level of testability with the MVP pattern in WebForms, but these are all off-the-beaten path approaches. With ASP.NET MVC this stuff is core. That's just the way you do it.
And don't worry about the preview/beta status. The team has always maintained that you don't need a go-live license to deploy it (even though they now offer one). It's purely additive on the existing ASP.NET Runtime.
It's like automatic vs. manual transmission. Pick one that makes you happy and run with it.
I prefer ASP.NET MVC to WebForms, so I would choose that, but you need to work out as a team where your core skill set is and whether or not choosing MVC will:
Create a better product.
Get you to market quicker.
Don't just choose it because it's new. WebForms is still a great choice, and you can write code for WebForms that's both testable and has clear seperation of concerns.
So far Mvc looks good, however I m a castle advocate I have used monorail in many production sites and it got me into learning about IoC and AR
Cheack out castleproject.org
I'd recommend giving it a shot.
We just recently released an e-commerce platform with MVC running the front end, and while there are some gotchas that you may stumble upon (Say, resolving Url's with anonymous types is currently far slower than using a RouteValueDictionary, was a surprise to me), it certainly feels like it was a lot easier to build a manageable system in MVC compared to our older WebForms apps.
If you have the luxury of choosing, then you should definitely have a closer look. The bugs that have shown up while we worked on it have all been fixed fairly promptly, and most things work well now, and it's starting to feel pretty complete.
But in the end, it's always a risk to take on an early beta product. :)
Unless your app is super simple, it's likely that MVC will be released before you go to production. That hardly matters though. I have been building on MVC since Preview 2. Each new version has contained breaking changes; however, they have not been very hard to track down and fix. It's very unlikely that by 1.0 you could create a mountain of code that would be toppled over by some breaking changes. Simply budget a few person hours to apply each new version.
If you don't have to put your app in production soon, yes write it in MVC.
Here, we have a team working with MVC and planning to put it on prodution at jan/2009.
If it's not mission critical and you and your team have the time to learn it, why not?