Page 2 - Ruby Section

No, it's not pretty clear.

If there's no model, it's not MVC, simple as that.

You can say what you like, it doesn't make it true, and looks like it's one of those cases.

I'd like to clarify this: just because the model is handled outside of the system (or handled for you) doesn’t mean that it's not part of the design. RoR fits with MVC, end of story .

By your definition Cocoa apps may not be MVC because of bindings and such — yet MVC is mentioned to some degree in every Cocoa book and Intro that I've read. You have utils to handle the model for you, and you may choose some existing models. It just works.

The claim seems very far-fetched and has nothing to do with the nature of design patterns as I understand them. What’s important is that a system is composed in a certain way. Not that you have to do something manually or internally.

Think separation.

Take care ,

Mark.

the model isn't necessarily anything to do with a RDBMS, it's just wherever the data is stored, which in this case is a bunch of ruby objects. The fact that the data originally comes from a database and will be going back there sometime is the layer below.

Yeah, but it's still modelling how it will be stored (whatever lies underneath it, be it Postgres or CSV, or even flatfile). Rails isn't really mvc since you skip the modelling stage and entrust activerecord to build an internal structure for you (I believe this is what you were calling a model, Mark). I suppose it comes down to personal preference as to whether you regard that as a model. personally, unless it was manually modelled, i wouldn't.

Welcome back LinuxPenguin

Thank you, xlordt

I don't see how you can skip the Model stage by doing it elsewhere. In the same way that you're still creating a View if you choose to use something like Interface Builder* .

Modeling data within a system has about as much to do with MVC as classes have to do with OOP — that is to say not a lot .

I think it really comes down to what a design pattern is, and by extension what MVC is. The only reason to call anything MVC is because it uses this design pattern.

I'll reiterate: a system doesn't have to work the way you want for it to be MVC, the separation is there. Automation is another abstraction entirely.

Rails fits the bill, so it is MVC *shug*. It's really a mood point to claim otherwise don't you think .

Take care,

Mark.

* Interface builder will also create a usable Model for you. In fact it often amazed me how much you can actually do without moving into Xcode.

I missed you baby anyways...


To answer the question of a new forum, I think it would be better to keep it as it is for now.. till it really bug's everyone.

damn LinuxPenguin you always seem to get me derepped

You manage just fine without my help, maybe those trolling classes really paid off

Nice to have you back.

@Mark: *shrug* could be argued either way. And like you said, moot point.