| <?xml version="1.0"?> |
| |
| <document> |
| <properties> |
| <title>Turbine Model 2+1</title> |
| <author email="jon@latchkey.com">Jon S. Stevens</author> |
| </properties> |
| |
| <body> |
| |
| <section name="What is model 2+1?"> |
| |
| <source test=""><![CDATA[ |
| To: turbine@list.working-dogs.com |
| Subject: Re: Is Turbine MVC or HMVC? |
| Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:04:52 +0200 |
| From: Christoph Reck Christoph.Reck@dlr.de |
| ]]></source> |
| |
| <p> |
| Turbine follows the MVC desing pattern. |
| </p> |
| <p> |
| <ul> |
| <li> Model - the underlying data sources (via peers or beans)</li> |
| <li> View - one of the templating engines</li> |
| <li> Controller - Turbine servlet plus your action+screen classes</li> |
| </ul> |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| Since the view and the controller are tightly coupled in Turbine, |
| it is stated to follow the Model2 design pattern, with a + 1 |
| addition due to way actions are used (hence Model 2 + 1). |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| Turbine does not directly support the Hierachical MVC pattern, but |
| it cout be used this way by defining multiple module and template |
| pathes (would impact performance). Note that in the HMVC each MVC |
| instance is self-contained and separable from the rest. |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| Note that many components within a MVC system follow themselves |
| the MVC pattern, therefore most MVC systems are also HMVC systems |
| (this also applies to Turbine as a whole, but your application with |
| Turbine is normally not HMVC). |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| Also note that you could use Turbine in a non MVC manner, but |
| normally it leads you to use it as MVC (which JSP does not). |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| I hope this clarifies your question, |
| Christoph |
| </p> |
| |
| </section> |
| |
| <section name="Jon's Comments"> |
| <p> |
| That is a GREAT explanation and I'm going to use that for now on...except it |
| isn't entirely true. :-) |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| The +1 was a joke on my part to see what people would do with it. I figured |
| that people were believing this Model 2 hype with JSP and such and I wanted |
| to improve on it. I love playing with marketing games. I read that Model 2 |
| paper and then figured that Turbine was better than what they declared as |
| Model 2. |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| Calling it Model 3 would have been like saying that Turbine was just a third |
| generation of Model 2. So, instead I figured that making it +1 just made it |
| appear to be an improved Model 2 model since that is what Turbine really is. |
| :-) |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| Oh yea...one more reason for the +1... |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| It is the Apache <a href="http://jakarta.apache.org/guidelines/decisions.html">voting style</a>. :-) |
| </p> |
| |
| <p> |
| Turbine is Model 2 .......... +1 ! :-) |
| </p> |
| |
| <p>-jon stevens</p> |
| </section> |
| |
| <section name="Resources"> |
| <p> |
| <a href="http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-12-1999/jw-12-ssj-jspmvc.html"> |
| Understanding JavaServer Pages Model 2 architecture</a> |
| </p> |
| |
| </section> |
| </body> |
| </document> |