Rails is not MVC
andrzejonsoftware.blogspot.com
Rails is not MVC
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Rails is not MVC
#2He is correct, but I doubt there is much confusion. The term MVC is used mainly to illustrate the separation of concerns, which is, IMO, the number one task for any framework.
Also, as far as I recall, the MVC pattern does not require communication between the models and the views, although it certainly allows it.
Looking at it from another perspective, MVC is a huge buzzword nowadays. It's simply not worth it to be conceptually correct for such a little gain.
Re: Rails is not MVC
#3He is correct, but I doubt there is much confusion. The term MVC is used mainly to illustrate the separation of concerns, which is, IMO, the number one task for any framework. Also, as far as I recall, the MVC pattern does not require communication between the models and the views, although it certainly allows it. Looking at it from another perspective, MVC is a huge buzzword nowadays. It's simply not worth it to be…
Here are the definitions as I know them:
MVC - MVC is separated, Models can notify Views.
Model1 - mixing all code in one place, often seen in first PHP apps
Model2 - separation between Model and View, I think Struts started it. Rails made it prettier.
Yes, the gain from correcting the confusion may be small. However, the topic of JavaScript MVC is going to be huge soon, good to know the differences.
Re: Rails is not MVC
#4This is exactly why Django used to call itself an "MTV" framework (Models, Templates, Views) rather than an "MVC" framework - we realised that the classic MVC pattern didn't really apply to the Web.
We lost that argument because no one cared - in fact, I think we probably caused a whole load of confusion by not using the same terminology as all of the other frameworks.
Re: Rails is not MVC
#5This is exactly why Django used to call itself an "MTV" framework (Models, Templates, Views) rather than an "MVC" framework - we realised that the classic MVC pattern didn't really apply to the Web. We lost that argument because no one cared - in fact, I think we probably caused a whole load of confusion by not using the same terminology as all of the other frameworks.
I'm a Rails person, but I always respected the Django community. The fact, that you were clear with the MVC vs MTV approach since the beginning was one of the reasons.
Re: Rails is not MVC
#6[deleted]
Re: Rails is not MVC
#7He is correct, but I doubt there is much confusion. The term MVC is used mainly to illustrate the separation of concerns, which is, IMO, the number one task for any framework. Also, as far as I recall, the MVC pattern does not require communication between the models and the views, although it certainly allows it. Looking at it from another perspective, MVC is a huge buzzword nowadays. It's simply not worth it to be…
[deleted]
Re: Rails is not MVC
#8This is exactly why Django used to call itself an "MTV" framework (Models, Templates, Views) rather than an "MVC" framework - we realised that the classic MVC pattern didn't really apply to the Web. We lost that argument because no one cared - in fact, I think we probably caused a whole load of confusion by not using the same terminology as all of the other frameworks.
pyramid is also following you there however you are right on causing confusion.
Re: Rails is not MVC
#9I don't see the point in making these subtle pattern distinctions. The model notifying the view is not significant enough of an architectural criteria to merit its own term. I submit that there are dozens of such architectural variances between MVC frameworks and that defining high-level terms to codify those differences isn't helpful. I'll even take it a step further and suggest that a focus on taxonomy diminishes ones ability to think fluidly about the low-level architecture and how to improve it to solve different problems.
This is quite different from (for example) the debates about the definition of REST. In that case there is a seminal paper and all kinds of subtle points leading to material benefits in web apps. What does Model2 have to teach us?
Re: Rails is not MVC
#10In my opinion the term MVC should be avoided. It was badly defined from the very start and has been misused to the point where it is mostly a buzzword. Beginners spend precious time trying to understand the concept using flawed guides and tutorials, whereas experts dismiss the term as being to unspecific. My favourite CS teacher tought us MVC simply by suggesting that we made a command-line client before building a GUI. There must be more practical ways like this which one can use to explain the idea.