Skip to main content

MVC is Broken

If you look up the definition of MVC or Model View Controller, it will hail the definition as being able to change your front end without affecting other parts of the application and vice versa. This sounds great in theory, however this claim is nothing more than a blatant lie.

A failing of the architectural pattern comes from the whole codebase being tied to a specific stack. Take ASP.NET MVC. The domain logic will most likely be in C#. Therefore your models will be in C#. Your controllers will be in C#. Your views will be a mixture of C# and some form of a templating language.

If you want to change your stack to the "next big thing" you are forced to take a big bang approach. ASP.NET MVC won't be around forever. Being tied to a specific technology feels wrong. Therefore this coupling means your designers are forced to use the templating language that your framework supports. This should be a flexible option that should be easy to change, after all the MVC pattern states this as one of it's benefits.

Being tied to a specific technology leads onto our most recent project. One of our biggest and most important projects is a legacy Flash application. Back in the early 2000's it was a cutting edge application - consistent across all browsers, ajax style requests, responsive design, you name it.

That being said we all know Flash is on its way out, and there lies the problem. It took myself about two weeks to add a few text boxes to the app in my first year at Codeweavers, all because the UI code is so difficult to work with. The logic is mixed within the UI. Had the app been developed in a MVC style we would be in a position to replace the legacy UI with a modern alternative.

We make use of SOA or Service Oriented Architecture at Codeweavers, therefore it seemed a natural fit to apply this to our rewrite of our legacy application. I proposed a theory:

"for an application to be truly independent of the frontend and backend the code must be developed in different languages."

For example, I taught myself enough PHP to make a JSON request, perform some conditional logic and loop over a collection. With this I was able to recreate one of our applications that was powered by our backend C# services. I would not want to create an application in PHP, but using PHP as a templating language was a great fit. After all this is one of the intentions of the language. Limiting myself to just three simple PHP constructs I was forced to put all logic on the service in question.

This complete separation of concerns is made possible due to the fact it is simply not possible for code to leak between the layers due to the different languages used in the implementation. This means I could easily spin up numerous front end views while the backend remains unchanged. Likewise we could change the back end implementation from C# to another language. Providing the endpoints and request/responses match, the front end will still be functional. This full separation of concerns is what MVC style frameworks have failed to achieve.

In ten years from now it is hard to say what the web will look like. What I can guarantee is that the web will still be here. We'll still be making HTTP requests. We'll still be making back end services that powers much of the apps on the internet. One thing no one can really comment on is what the web will look like. One point we all could agree on is that HTML5 should be wide spread and no doubt "the next big thing" will be on the horizon. The great thing by taking the approach discussed previously is that Codeweavers will be in the position to change either the front end or back end of our codebase at any time. Precisely what the MVC pattern has failed to deliver.


Popular posts from this blog

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …