[This is the third in a series started long ago on the use of MVC for building web “applications”.]
I’m glad I’m only getting back to this series now. I’ve had an opportunity to build many more web applications and have a much better appreciation for the poor terminology used to define web applications. For starters, this MV? business silly. We’ll get to that.
I know I’m a bit of an extremist in some things. Specifically, I like things to mean what they mean. When we abuse terms, we don’t communicate well. REST. There, I said it. I feel better. Stop using the term. Most people have a wrong idea of what it means b/c of all the silliness that has been done in its name. I don’t claim to know exactly myself. I don’t think it’s possible to rescue the term from the abuses heaped upon it. There, you see? I’m an extremist.
Now that we’ve covered that, on to MVC. I’m not sure who decided this was an
accurate description for what happens on the server-side of the web, but it’s
just flat wrong. As noted previously, HTTP uses a
It’s an IO-bound
Request -> Response function. Can you use patterns on either side
to help maintainability? Certainly! Just don’t confuse things. Let’s start with Views.
What is a view?
The [view or viewport] is responsible for mapping graphics onto a device.
A viewport typically has a one to one correspondence with a display surface
and knows how to render to it. A viewport attaches to a model and renders
its contents to the display surface. In addition, when the model changes,
the viewport automatically redraws the affected part of the image to reflect
those changes. […] there can be multiple viewports onto the same model and
each of these viewports can render the contents of the model to a different
Can we achieve MVC today? Possibly. You might be able to leverage web sockets to reach across a client/server architecture such as that presented by HTTP. However, you are more likely to find that “MVC” on the server is just limiting. You are typically better off building a sort of restricted data access service, a.k.a Web API (subtle hint). There’s really no point in trying to enrich a serialization format to make it work more like true MVC across the client and server.
This is no different than routing. Instead of calling your Router a Controller, you split them up. However, most frameworks really just use the router as a top level dispatcher and the controller as a lower-level dispatcher. Otherwise, I’d say web frameworks stay a lot closer to the original meaning than a lot of the other MV? patterns. (Hence the ?, of course.)
So what? Am I just ranting that I don’t like how people abuse terms? Possibly. However, I think this goes deeper. When you allow the slippery slope, you get caught on it, as well. It’s inevitable. The bigger, lurking danger is that we start to confuse useful patterns and use them in the wrong places. Many people use MVC frameworks today to build web APIs. However, that’s not MVC. So if you then switch to a desktop app to write MVC applications, you are either confused or delighted to find that it’s so much richer.
I don’t know what I would call what we build for the web; I know I wouldn’t call it MVC. In my experiments with Frank, I’ve found that writing simple functions and nesting them with rules makes a very easy mechanism for building web APIs. I think that would essentially just be a Command pattern. Simple, elegant, and very easy to understand. YMMV.