Welcome to the Lounge

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:

f I recall correctly, it's a SmallTalk "thing"

Marc Clifton wrote:

MVC, like MVVM is a great guideline, but the religiosity of it I can leave behind.

Coder For Hire wrote:

Or is it just code all over the place?

Brent Jenkins wrote:

I like ASP.NET MVC, but the thing I didn't like was having to create a controller for every view (seemed a bit too much like the old webforms code behind files),

protected void ActionResult Index()
{
    return View();
}

Brent Jenkins wrote:

I've seen projects with dozens (even hundreds) of view controllers with nothing but that in them..

Marc Clifton wrote:

Gads, isn't the controller class re-usable?

protected void ActionResult Index()
{
    return View();
}

protected void ActionResult Index()
{
    return View();
}

Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:

why would you have different controllers for each action? unless each of the above action does exactly the same thing, in which case have one controller for all the similar actions

Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:

that you are not using its full capacity does not make it invalid

Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:

I can see what you are getting at I think, firstly still not sure why you need a new controller for each view? if its only initialization then you can put them all in one controller, unless you are calling the views the same name!

• Views
  • Home
    • Index.cshtml (pretty much static content)
    • UsagePolicy.cshtml (pretty much static content)
  • Customers
    • Index.cshtml (pretty much static content)
    • List.cshtml (a list of customers)
    • Edit.cshtml (the "edit customer" form)
  • Shared
    • _Layout.cshtml

public class HomeController : Controller
{
  public ActionResult Index()
  {
    return View();
  }

  public ActionResult UsagePolicy()
  {
    return View();
  }
}

public class CustomerController : Controller
{
  public ActionResult Index()
  {
    return View();
  }

  public ActionResult List()
  {
    ..Customer list logic
  }

  [HttpGet]
  public ActionResult Edit()
  {
    ..Form initialization logic
  }

  [HttpPost]
  public ActionResult Edit()
  {
    ..Form relevant logic
  }
}

public class CustomerController : Controller
{
  public ActionResult List()
  {
    ..Customer list logic
  }

  [HttpGet]
  public ActionResult Edit()
  {
    ..Form initialization logic
  }

  [HttpPost]
  public ActionResult Edit()
  {
    ..Form relevant logic
  }
}

Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:

hink of it as similar to initialising a variable, you do that hundreds of times too but accept that as part of the process.

Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:

f you object to that then don't use MVC

Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:

so what you are saying is that it should create the controller/action code automatically if it isn't in your code.

protected void ActionResult Index()
{
    return View();
}

Brent Jenkins wrote:

Even to add a single static HTML page I'd still need to create a new view controller

<p>Hello world</p>

routes.MapRoute(
    "my-route",
    "{controller}/{viewname}",
    new { action = "GetView" }); //the GetView method has a parameter viewname of type string