Model View Controller/Presenter (MVC/P) Notes


I first learnt about MVC when playing with Rails and just followed "the book" without really considering the architecture that closely... it is intuitively "easy" (or so I thought) to understand and has obvious benifits.

From my own perspective, it was Rails that "popularised" this pattern for me. Before then I'd written web applications using the standard LAMP combiniation and through trial and error had my own seperation of various logical components that helped but was not as strict or as formalised as MVC. So, learning about MVC for web development was a boon.

Where I started to get a little confused was when trying to use MVC not to write a web based application but a desktop GUI. This soon got me thinking and I realised that I didn't have a good an understanding of MVC as I thought. Googling around for articles there also appears to be some confusion between various posts, especially in individual blogs. This note covers the best articles I found and my interpretation of them and current understanding of MVC.

What Got Me Thinking

Below is a really simplified version of something I was working on. I want to have a test and associated description. However, I know there are going to be potentially many versions of the test so I want to record the versions along with a little change note. The highly simplified database I had in mind is shown below.

I wanted to have a little database management GUI. Something like the following. I want to create a test manager, but I want to embed into the one window two lists. The first list displays the tests. When a test is clicked it updates the second list with the versions of the test available.

So, why a problem? In the articles and threads I had read, I had always thought there was a 1:1 relationship between view, model and controller. To represent just the Test table, for example, was easy. Initialise a model, view and controller and coordinate. When the window shows, the controller requests from the model all the test data. The model then publishes a "test data retrieved" event and then the view is populated.

Examples I have seen do something like this.

v = CreateView(Test)
m = CreateModel(Test)
c = CreateController(Test, m, v)

My first simple view into just the test table (i.e., not including the test versions), in pseudo code, looked something like the following.

class View {
   View() {
      Add list control
      Display loading message in list control
      Add buttons
      Disable buttons

   OnAddClick() {
      Publish request to add a new test record
      Disable the add button 
      Change add button text to "Adding..."

   OnDeleteClick() {
      Publish request to delete the selected test record
      Disable the delete button
      Change the delete button text to "Deleting..."

   LoadTestList(lst) {
      Clear the list control
      Load all data from list of rows in lst into the list 
      Enable buttons

   Add(testRecord) {
      The add request has been completed
      Add the new record into the list control
      Renable add button and change its label to "Add"

   Delete(testRecord) {
      The delete request has been copleted
      Delete the specified record from the list control
      Renable delete button and change its label to "Delete"
class Controller {
   Controller(model, view) {
      Subscribe to all events model publishes
      Subscribe to all events view publishes
      Request list of tests from model

   ModelRequestComplete(data) {
      if entire list {
      } else if add complete {
      } else if delete complete {

   ViewRequests(data) {
      if add requested {
         start thread to get model to add record
      } else if delete request {
         start thread to get model to delete record


Okay, so it seems reasonable. The model has no idea about the view or controller. It just receives requests to set/get something and sends out events to the world in general when it completes a request. This allows anything using the model to do so asynchronously. I.e., whilst the model is servicing a request the requester can go away and do other things and just respond to a completion event when the model has finished doing the work.

First question: The controller seems pretty thin. Why is it relevant here? What should it really be doing?

The above structure has already led to my first thought... the controller doesn't really seem to be doing very much. In fact, it wouldn't make much difference if it didn't exist and the view contained all the controller logic. It might even be cleaner because the controller isn't doing much more than passing messages between the view and model. Okay, it is launching threads to use the model so that the GUI can remain responsive whilse a request is being processed, but the GUI could do that, and probably should be the one deciding whether it wants to use the model asynchronously or not.

Second question: A window combining views... How should this be structured using MVC?

Now if I add a second list to the window I have the following issue. I wanted to use my generic view and just add in the second list. So we click the test list... the view sends a request to get test versions associated with the highlighted test. It must disable the test list whilst data is being retrieved and also clear the version list and display some kind of "loading" message. When the data is retrieved the view must populate the version list and re-enable the test list and hide the "loading" message.

My issue is that this isn't really one view, model and controller. The controller needs to use two models. Then does it use 1 or 2 views? If it uses 2 views should I really have 2 controllers? What if I have more than 2 views that depend on the test list being clicked, for example if there is a list for tags associated with a test type?

So, as you can see I had a few questions, which lead me to learn what I've put down in the following sections...

MVC, The Theory


MVC seems to have been conceived of in the world of SmallTalk, not a language I know anything about apart from hearing it mentioned here and there. Reading about it from this historical perspective did clear a few things up for me. I ended up reading the following articles, which appear to be written by folks who were intimately involved in coming up with these patterns. Apparently Trygve Reenskaug was the originator (according to Pattern Oriented Software Architecture For Dummies) but it was first widly seen by people in SmallTalk.

  1. Thing-Model-View-Editor by Trygve Reenskaug. [Last accessed 10-Feb-2015]
  2. A Description of the MVC User Interface Paradigm in the SmallTalk-80 System. [Last accessed 09-Feb-2015]
  3. Twisting the Triad, the Evolution of the Dolphin SmallTalk MVP Application Framework. [Last accessed 09-Feb-2015]


The general strategy of MVC is to split up the responsibility for storing the data (the model), displaying the data (the view), and managing the user interaction between the two (the controller) into separate modules. A programmer can then modify one component without needing to know everything, or indeed (almost) anything about the other components.

For example, if the view for a text box is jazzed up, the view designer doing the fancy graphics stuff doesn't need to know how the text is stored or how the user enters the text. S/he just needs to know that s/he magically receives a message with information about what text to display and with this should display the text however desired.

Or as another example, a view on an address book retrieves a list of all names beginning with 'L' through the model. The model stores the addresses in a raw binary file. Now the software is to be ugraded to store the address book in XML. Because the view is separate from the model the storage can easily be changed without having to touch a single line of code in the view.

The split of responsibilities is easy enough to understand, but it was the description of the controller that ellucidated things for me. In my development so far the controller seemed to be waifer thin and wasn't really doing a lot other than forwarding messages between the view and model. I couldn't really see the point of it... until I read both the articles. In the SmallTalk world the controller would do things like detect the key press, or detect the mouse click and figure out if the key press would modify the model or whether the mouse click was inside the view etc. Now, however, in modern OS architectures, most of this controller functionality already exists so the controller starts to become rather thin. As Andrew Bower et al say, "...the idea of a controller did not fit neatly ... most modern graphical operating systems, provide a set of native widgets ... [which] already include most of the controller functionality embodied as part of the underlying operating system control...".

In summary then, we have 3 components:

  1. Model: The components of the system that "...simulate the application domain...". For example, a counter would store its value as an integer. The model is the combination of the integer itself, the rules that specify what values it may take, and the interface through which it is modified. These make up the "application domain" - the idea of a real-world counter.
  2. View: How the model is displayed. So for a counter in a GUI it might display a box and a set of up/down arrows and the current value of the counter, which it reads from the model
  3. Controller: The interface between the model, view and input device.

The diagram above shows roughly how the interactions would take place. A user does something like hitting a key. The controller interprets the key press. Is it the enter key? Is it a normal character? I.e., the controller has knowledge about what the key does/signifies and starts a set of events.

If the key was a character, for example, the controller could message the model and ask it to append the new chracter to its character store. The model would do this and then signal, either using a publish/subscribe or other mechanism, to the world in general that it had made such an update. The view could then listen for and receive this update and query the model for the new text and display it however it wanted.

On the press of the return key, on the other hand, the controller might not ask the model to update its string store. It might instead signal the view to do something special, or signal another controller that the user has finished entering data.