2011/2/15 Chris McDonough <[email protected]> > On Feb 15, 11:35 am, Juliusz Gonera <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mike Orr wrote: > > > In 2005 MVC for the web was still a shiny new idea. But in the > > > following six years people used it and discovered its limitations and > > > blogged about it. Namely, that MVC was designed for an environment > > > very different from the web, it fits web applications imperfectly, and > > > people sometimes agonize how to shoehorn their app into the > > > formalities of MVC, which is counterproductive. Anybody who studies > > > MVC will come across these complaints, and will see that the current > > > generation of browsers is going "beyond MVC". That should reassure > > > them that Pyramid isn't being substandard by doing this. > > > > Could you give an example of such case (where MV is better than MVC for > > a web app)? Or a link to some blog post. I, by no means, want to start a > > flame war or argue that what you stated is not true. I'm just > > unexperienced and curious ;) > > "MVC" meant something very different before web frameworks coopted the > term. In fact, it was already leaning towards meaninglessness in the > world of event-driven GUI frameworks before the web world started to > use it. The term originated in Smalltalk, where it described a very > precise interaction between three components that had concrete > implementations. It was later coopted by other GUI frameworks (in > Java and MS worlds) to mean something slightly different, confusing > things a bit. > > Then finally, in maybe 2005 or so, it was adopted by web frameworks to > mean something entirely different. See also > > http://docs.pylonsproject.org/projects/pyramid/1.0/designdefense.html#pyramid-gets-its-terminology-wrong-mvc > > So these days "MVC" is just a marketing acronym. Its value is only as > a binary marketing identifier ("this framework is MVC, that one is > not"). "Non-MVC" frameworks tend to put both presentation and > business logic into the same place (e.g. PHP into a template), while > "MVC" ones do not. But the individual letters of the acronym are > nonsensical to try to adhere to in most web frameworks. If you're > trying to be "more MVC" in your code, you will have a very difficult > time, because it's just not really a technical goal to aspire to. > There would be no generally agreed upon way to do it, because MVC > doesn't have any sensible well-understood shared technical meaning. > > - C > > Interesting, I always thought that, the mvc pattern implementation on Pylons, was a bad one, (don't know about other web frameworks), since you can not access the model from the view, without using the controler. Guess that now in pyramid, both controller and model are saw as one?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
