Re: Some remarks on the difference between traditional MVC and web-MVC (was: Re^2: Implementing Model-View-Controller)

First off, since the web mostly works with HTML pages that can only be updated via request/response actions (I'm ignoring flash), you can't really have a model update the view's output directly. Also, there are so many possible views that updating them all would be very inefficient.

Unless you get serious about AJAX (many people bet on this). In theory, you can implement the entire MVC in JavaScript (client-side) and have your server acting just as a Web Services provider. In fact, XForms is just that, the only problem is that it still isn't supported by the web browsers..

daniel

Comment on Re: Some remarks on the difference between traditional MVC and web-MVC (was: Re^2: Implementing Model-View-Controller)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Some remarks on the difference between traditional MVC and web-MVC (was: Re^2: Implementing Model-View-Controller) by dimar (Curate) on Jan 05, 2006 at 20:15 UTC
Yup. In fact there is work underway now on complete templating, database persistence and state management using only the browser and Javascript. Here are some links relating to what ruoso said: Javascript-only Templating and MVC framework. Ajax Massive Storage System (supposedly simulate a database without RDBMS or web server). The point is that "offline AJAX" is a buzzword to be looking out for. Another buzzword "serverless AJAX" might become popular. In fact, with JSON, you can have "offline AJAX without XML" (which is ironic, since XMLHTTP is what started this whole bandwagon in the first place). =oQDlNWYsBHI5JXZ2VGIulGIlJXYgQkUPxEIlhGdgY2bgMXZ5VGIlhGV	[reply]
Re^3: Some remarks on the difference between traditional MVC and web-MVC (was: Re^2: Implementing Model-View-Controller) by ruoso (Curate) on Jan 06, 2006 at 18:16 UTC
Well, but if we go to offline AJAX, then we're getting back to that small system that a simple WebMVC already solves... The question here is having a complex system that you do want to have a server, or yet, multiple servers.. daniel	[reply]
Re^2: Some remarks on the difference between traditional MVC and web-MVC (was: Re^2: Implementing Model-View-Controller) by Joost (Canon) on Jan 05, 2006 at 17:06 UTC
Unless you get serious about AJAX (many people bet on this). While you can certainly craft stuff on top of AJAX that behaves like a callback system, it's still running on top of HTTP, i.e. request/response pairs originating from the browser. That means you're still just polling for data from the client as soon as you need any information from the server side. You're not pushing data to the display as you do in traditional GUI applications, where the view also knows a lot about the state of the display. Actually, my guess is that the more AJAX technology you're using, the more you'd have to focus on plain output & http caching if you want to get any kind of performance (instead of generating one HTML page, you're generating lots of XML fragments). "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply]
Re^3: Some remarks on the difference between traditional MVC and web-MVC (was: Re^2: Implementing Model-View-Controller) by ruoso (Curate) on Jan 05, 2006 at 17:22 UTC
That means you're still just polling for data from the client as soon as you need any information from the server side. You're not pushing data to the display as you do in traditional GUI applications. Well... I was talking about getting even deeper into AJAX... I mean, the Model would be implemented as Javascript objects, the controller as javascript objects and the view as javascript code glued to the form input elements... This way you would have the same type of communication of traditional GUI applications... where the server doesn't push data also... daniel	[reply]


Your skill will accomplish what the force of many cannot
	PerlMonks