Re: [Phrame-devel] MVC sample application

[Tony B. <to...@to...>]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Jason Sweat wrote:
> Regarding the forms, I saw them as a nice method of accessing the superglobals.
>  Most of my application had a single unmodified ActionForm, and then perhaps
> one or two classes with a custom way of accessing the.  In most cases these
> were when I wanted to do "table at a time" rather than "row at a time" updates.
>  I would have a series of key_1, val1_1 val2_2, key_2, val1_2, val2_2... posted
> to the form, which would then loop over the posted inputs and assemble them
> into an array for processing the updates in a loop, calling (in the update
> action) the Model::Update() once of each of the key_* processed.

You guys are right, the form class is pretty clean and I'll be adding that 
back into the design.

> If I am interpreting your MVC example correctly, I would have to tell them the
> controller will "forward" to models, which either are the date (query the list)
> or manipulate the data ("updateContact").  This feels like a big conceptual
> shift from the original Phrame design.

Yeah this is part of the semantics discussion I was getting in to before 
(not to mention a departure from the basic struts design). In my eyes, a 
form or command can be fully aware of the commands or other views it my 
have to interact with.  Thus when they are done executing they let the 
controller know which one of the set of views/commands it can interact 
with to forward processing to. The controller dumbly accepts it and hands 
off the baton to the next view/command.

This is a departure from the original Phrame design.  Whether it makes 
sense or not is up for discussion.  

-- 
Tony Bibbs          "I guess you have to remember that those who don't
to...@to...  hunt or fish often see those of us who do as      
                    harmlessly strange and sort of amusing. When you  
                    think about it, that might be a fair assessment." 
                    --Unknown