MVCR pattern (was Re: [Catalyst] Bing!)

[David Storrs]

On Aug 11, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 12:34 -0400, David Storrs wrote:
>
>> Could you
>> explain why you feel that the Model component of the MVC web
>> framework should not represent the interface to the conceptual Model
>> (which is the business logic in your external modules)?
>>
>
> Because "conceptual model" eq "Model component".

Ok, we're having a definitions problem and it's my fault because I  
worded my question sloppily.  Let me try to distinguish (and these  
are not the same meanings I used above).  To me:

1- "conceptual model":  The picture I have in my head of how  
something should work.

2- "pattern Model": The element 'Model' in the MVC pattern.  A purely  
conceptual object that exists only in mindspace.  Similar to 'Linked  
List', or 'Binary Tree'.

3- "Model library": The code that actually manipulates data--talks to  
a database, holds state, whatever.

4- "framework Model": The code which implements the role of Model  
within a particular framework (e.g. Catalyst).  So far as  
manipulating the pattern Model goes, the framework Model does not  
need to be more than a empty wrapper around the Model library; the  
only thing the framework Model needs to provide is hooks that allow  
it to easily talk to the rest of the framework.


All that being said, I don't feel a need to beat this one further;  
based on emails that have gone by since, I'm pretty sure I understand  
your
view.  You want the framework Model to be a thin wrapper around the  
Model library.  Correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise just ignore.

Ordinarily it's not a problem to conflate items 2-4; I'd like to  
offer these terms up for the 1% of times when the distinction  
actually does matter.  Do they seem sane to everyone else?