MVC is not a "pattern" and never has been. MVC is composed of various patterns, e.g. the relation between the view and the controller is normally based on the Strategy Pattern and the relation between the view and the model is normally based on the Observer Pattern. There are others. Further, the web cannot, for obvious reasons implement the classical MVC GUI archietecture. There is, for that reason, a web-MVC. Again, as Ted has pointed out, the web-MVC is based on the view --> controller --> model or controller --> model --> view , depending on whether you are talking about the request or response. If you couple up the whole shebang with both view --> controller and view --> model, I am personally not interested because that is a design mess.
These distinctions bo back before Java itself and are not Struts progeny. On 3/20/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is more information Dakota : > http://www.phpwact.org/pattern/model_view_controller > > "Because the popular MVC framework Struts implements a combined Front > Controller and Application Controller, some people assume that this is > what is meant by the MVC pattern in the context of a web application. > For the same reason, many descriptions of the Front Controller pattern > on the web do not draw the distinction between a Front Controller and > a Application Controller." > > > > On 3/20/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jonathan Revusky wrote: > > > A third point that I must make in this context is that, though, in the > > > above, I am criticizing the "electoral democracy" aspects of this, I > > > actually don't subscribe to the idea that an open source project is a > > > one man-one vote democracy of any sort anyway. For example, in the > > > FreeMarker project, the opinion of somebody who has made some tiny > > > contribution to the code (and is thus a "committer") cannot be > > > considered equal to mine, when simply most of the current core code > base > > > was written by me. And thus, the idea that this person's vote is equal > > > to mine strikes me as absurd. It would be equally absurd if I joined > > > another project, and after making a nominal contribution, considered > > > that my vote was equal to that of someone who had written, say, 80% of > > > the code. > > > > You might be interested in the bylaws I wrote for Java Web Parts: > > > > http://sourceforge.net/docman/?group_id=140728 > > > > Most importantly in the context of this discussion is the fact that > > ANYONE who contributes AT ALL can vote and HAVE THEIR VOTE COUNT. > > Non-contributors can vote too, but are non-binding (I am considering > > changing this). > > > > I have a weighting system for how peoples' votes count... "contributors" > > count as 1, "developers" (aka committers) count as 1.5 and > > "administrators" (aka the PMC) count as 2. The only requirement is that > > a person be subscribed to the mailing list, since all voting takes place > > there. There is a formula used to calculate the final result of a vote, > > and simple majority carries the vote. > > > > By the way, the definition of "contributor" is "anyone that contributes > > to JWP". I probably should refine that definition a bit :) But, the > > point is that I wanted it to be a very low barrier of entry, so even if > > you just point out a batch of spelling errors in the documentation, you > > would be considered a contributor and get a counted vote. > > > > I bet some of the people on the contributors list don't even know they > > have a vote! :) In truth though, we have yet to have an actual vote on > > anything, so I suppose it's all untested. > > > > The voting system is perhaps a bit convoluted, but I tried to write it > > in such a way that no one person, INCLUDING ME, could grab control of > > the project. There is also veto power on all votes, and more > > importantly, an override provision... for instance, while I as an > > Administrator can veto any vote, either of the other two developers can > > call for an override vote. I of course cannot vote in the override > > vote, and if my veto is overridden, that's the final word, I cannot > > override the veto. > > > > I have no doubt there are flaws in my system, but my goal was to give > > everyone a voice, and to ensure that the will of the majority would be > > done no matter what. > > > > Frank > > > > -- > > Frank W. Zammetti > > Founder and Chief Software Architect > > Omnytex Technologies > > http://www.omnytex.com > > AIM: fzammetti > > Yahoo: fzammetti > > MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Java Web Parts - > > http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net > > Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it! > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Alexandre Poitras > Québec, Canada > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
