Re: Design Question for Model and View

Jason Cavett wrote:
The client/server (or
initiator/responder) model seems a lot less complex as opposed to pure
MVC.

The statement makes no sense. There is no correlation or conflict - one would implement MVC using components that follow an initiator-responder pattern. Or not. One could also implement a non-MVC solution using an initiator-responder pattern. Or not.

And what do you mean by "pure" MVC? How does it relate to this discussion?

I would recommend the architectural model of MVC, or one of its close relatives. It makes for a maintainable, stable product.

What complexity do you fear? Is avoiding it worth compromising the maintainability and stability of the product?

--
Lew
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Design Question for Model and View
    ... implement MVC using components that follow an initiator-responder pattern. ... And what do you mean by "pure" MVC? ... I'm guessing a separate controller may be applicable here, ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Porting Starter Pack to SBCL/OS X
    ... if you refactor it to pure ... MVC then swapping UI should be trivial... ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)