MVC vs. ST/V 
Author Message
 MVC vs. ST/V

For those who may be interested, here is a reply that I received from
Digitalk regarding their new alternative to MVC.

From: Tim Johnson

>Dear Mr. Welden,

>Here is the straight skinny from our Product Manager.  Since
>Vasilli hasn't seen the ApplicationCoordinator framework,
>his comments will be germaine to the older ViewManager


>Tim Johnson

From: Tom Murphy

>    I don't know what his coupling comments were but the design of
>    applicationCoordinator is such that you have loosely coupled views
>     "multiple" to an underlying model that a coordinator (controller)
>     takes care of....the system is coupled through an event framework.

>     A framework needs three peices: Dmonain model support, user interface
>     building blocks, loosely-coupled communcation between objects....mvc
>     allows you to keep the domain model separated from the interface and
>    the interface is made of two components: the view and the controller.
>     Our initial product made use of the ApplicationWindow framework which
>     was Single View, monolithic the view talked directly to the
>     domain--not loose coupled.  ViewManager allows multiple Views which
>    talk to the monolithic model through a Manager, less tightly coupled.
>    ApplicationCoordinater: Multiple Views, Factored Model, Model is not
>     connect to the interface, event driven instead of dependency
>     mechanism...this is very well factored and loosely coupled.

>     If you want more this is all in the devcon procedings.  So, yes, we
>     are evolving and MVC is also evolving in certain ways.  You can write
>     yucky code with either but we certainly have a well designed
>     framework.

From: Vasilli

>>>>>About half a year ago I posted an article here comparing MVC and ST/V

From: David

>>>>As a newcomer to both Smalltalk and this forum, I would like to see this

From: Tim Johnson

>>>Keep in mind the following as you read this stuff: 1) the MVC
>>>spec as written for Smalltalk-80 is now 15 years old.  We have
>>>been evolving and improving the paradigm over the last 11 years ....
>>>Vassili's comments will be further out of date.

From: David

>>Perhaps they are somewhat dated, but from his previous post, it seems that
>>the ST/V approach has some coupling problems that I would prefer to avoid.
>> Maybe you would be so kind as to expound on Digitalk's paradigm
>>improvements with regard to the issue of coupling.


'...and the bits just keep on coming....'

Sat, 26 Jul 1997 21:35:00 GMT  
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. ST vs Java vs ST vs ....

2. MVC vs. ST/V

3. MVC vs. ST/V

4. MVC vs. ST/V -Reply

5. stdcall vs c vs cdecl vs pascal vs whosyerdaddy

6. 68K vs CFM68K vs Tk 8.0.3 vs AppearanceLib vs System 7

7. gnu smalltalk vs st/v vs digitalk

8. MASM vs TASM vs VC++ vs DJGPP vs A*^ vs PCC vs DEBUG,, "Hello World!"

9. MASM vs TASM vs VC++ vs DJGPP vs A*^ vs PCC vs DEBUG,, "Hello World!"

10. Clock Problem (VA ST vs. Dolphin ST)

11. Comparison: ST-80 vs. ST-V

12. ST-80/OS/2 vs. ST-80/Windows


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software