V

2

24

I'm fairly new to the using ViewModels and I wonder, is it acceptable for a ViewModel to contain instances of domain models as properties, or should the properties of those domain models be properties of the ViewModel itself? For example, if I have a class Album.cs

public class Album
{
    public int AlbumId { get; set; }
    public string Title { get; set; }
    public string Price { get; set; }
    public virtual Genre Genre { get; set; }
    public virtual Artist Artist { get; set; }
}

Would you typically have the ViewModel hold an instance of the Album.cs class, or would you have the ViewModel have properties for each of the Album.cs class' properties.

public class AlbumViewModel
{
    public Album Album { get; set; }
    public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> Genres { get; set; }
    public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> Artists { get; set; }
    public int Rating { get; set; }
    // other properties specific to the View
}


public class AlbumViewModel
{
    public int AlbumId { get; set; }
    public string Title { get; set; }
    public string Price { get; set; }
    public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> Genres { get; set; }
    public IEnumerable<SelectListItem> Artists { get; set; }
    public int Rating { get; set; }
    // other properties specific to the View
}

Virnelli answered 14/5, 2014 at 8:0 Comment(1)

It might be dangerous to give full access to model object like in your first approach. The better option would be having your model in private field and expose only properties that are needed for view. e.g. public string Title { get { return this.album.Title; } set{ this.album.Title = value;} } – Chiou 14/5, 2014 at 8:5

J

59

tl;dr

Is it acceptable for a ViewModel to contain instances of domain models?

Basically not because you are literally mixing two layers and tying them together. I must admit, I see it happen a lot and it depends a bit on the quick-win-level of your project, but we can state that it's not conform the Single Responsibility Principle of SOLID.

The fun part: this is not limited to view models in MVC, it's actually a matter of separation of the good old data, business and ui layers. I'll illustrate this later, but for now; keep in mind it applies to MVC, but also, it applies to many more design patterns as well.

I'll start with pointing out some general applicable concepts and zoom in into some actual scenario's and examples later.

Let's consider some pros and cons of not mixing the layers.

What it will cost you

There is always a catch, I'll sum them, explain later, and show why they are usually not applicable

duplicate code
adds extra complexity
extra performance hit

What you'll gain

There is always a win, I'll sum it, explain later, and show why this actually makes sense

independent control of the layers

The costs

duplicate code

It's not DRY!

You will need an additional class, which is probably exactly the same as the other one.

This is an invalid argument. The different layers have a well defined different purpose. Therefore, the properties which lives in one layer have a different purpose than a property in the other - even if the properties have the same name!

For example:

This is not repeating yourself:

public class FooViewModel
{
    public string Name {get;set;}
}

public class DomainModel
{
    public string Name {get;set;}
}

On the other hand, defining a mapping twice, is repeating yourself:

public void Method1(FooViewModel input)
{
    //duplicate code: same mapping twice, see Method2
    var domainModel = new DomainModel { Name = input.Name };
    //logic
}

public void Method2(FooViewModel input)
{
    //duplicate code: same mapping twice, see Method1
    var domainModel = new DomainModel { Name = input.Name };
    //logic
}

It's more work!

Really, is it? If you start coding, more than 99% of the models will overlap. Grabbing a cup of coffee will take more time ;-)

"It needs more maintenance"

Yes it does, that's why you need to unit test your mapping (and remember, don't repeat the mapping).

adds extra complexity

No, it does not. It adds an extra layer, which make it more complicated. It does not add complexity.

A smart friend of mine, once stated it like this:

"A flying plane is a very complicated thing. A falling plane is very complex."

He is not the only one using such a definition, the difference is in predictability which has an actual relation with entropy, a measurement for chaos.

In general: patterns do not add complexity. They exist to help you reduce complexity. They are solutions to well known problems. Obviously, a poorly implemented pattern doesn't help therefore you need to understand the problem before applying the pattern. Ignoring the problem doesn't help either; it just adds technical debt which has to be repaid sometime.

Adding a layer gives you well defined behavior, which due to the obvious extra mapping, will be a (bit) more complicated. Mixing layers for various purposes will lead to unpredictable side-effects when a change is applied. Renaming your database column will result in a mismatch in key/value-lookup in your UI which makes you do a non existing API call. Now, think of this and how this will relate to your debugging efforts and maintenance costs.

extra performance hit

Yes, extra mapping will lead to extra CPU power to be consumed. This, however (unless you have a raspberry pi connected to a remote database) is negligible compared to fetching the data from the database. Bottom line: if this is an issue: use caching.

The win

independent control of the layers

What does this mean?

Any combination of this (and more):

creating a predictable system
altering your business logic without affecting your UI
altering your database, without affecting your business logic
altering your ui, without affecting your database
able to change your actual data store
total independent functionality, isolated well testable behavior and easy to maintain
cope with change and empower business

In essence: you are able to make a change, by altering a well defined piece of code without worrying about nasty side effects.

beware: business counter measures!

"this is to reflect change, it's not going to change!"

Change will come: spending trillions of US dollar annually cannot simply pass by.

Well that's nice. But face it, as a developer; the day you don't make any mistakes is the day you stop working. Same applies to business requirements.

fun fact; software entropy

"my (micro) service or tool is small enough to cope with it!"

This might be the toughest one since there is actually a good point here. If you develop something for one time use, it probably is not able to cope with the change at all and you have to rebuild it anyway, provided you are actually going to reuse it. Nevertheless, for all other things: "change will come", so why make the change more complicated? And, please note, probably, leaving out layers in your minimalistic tool or service will usually puts a data layer closer to the (User)Interface. If you are dealing with an API, your implementation will require a version update which needs to be distributed among all your clients. Can you do that during a single coffee break?

"lets do it quick-and-simple, just for the time being...."

Is your job "for the time being"? Just kidding ;-) but; when are you going to fix it? Probably when your technical debt forces you to. At that time it cost you more than this short coffee break.

"What about 'closed for modification and open for extension'? That's also a SOLID principle!"

Yes, it is! But this doesn't mean you shouldn't fix typo's. Or that every applied business rule can be expressed as an sum of extensions or that you are not allowed to fix things that are broken. Or as Wikipedia states it:

A module will be said to be closed if it is available for use by other modules. This assumes that the module has been given a well-defined, stable description (the interface in the sense of information hiding)

which actually promotes separation of layers.

Now, some typical scenarios:

ASP.NET MVC

Since, this is what you are using in your actual question:

Let me give an example. Imagine the following view model and domain model:

note: this is also applicable to other layer types, to name a few: DTO, DAO, Entity, ViewModel, Domain, etc.

public class FooViewModel
{
    public string Name {get; set;} 

    //hey, a domain model class!
    public DomainClass Genre {get;set;} 
}

public class DomainClass
{
    public int Id {get; set;}      
    public string Name {get;set;} 
}

So, somewhere in your controller you populate the FooViewModel and pass it on to your view.

Now, consider the following scenarios:

1) The domain model changes.

In this case you'll probably need to adjust the view as well, this is bad practice in context of separation of concerns.

If you have separated the ViewModel from the DomainModel, a minor adjustment in the mappings (ViewModel => DomainModel (and back)) would be sufficient.

2) The DomainClass has nested properties and your view just displays the "GenreName"

I have seen this go wrong in real live scenarios.

In this case a common problem is that the use of @Html.EditorFor will lead to inputs for the nested object. This might include Ids and other sensitive information. This means leaking implementation details! Your actual page is tied to your domain model (which is probably tied to your database somewhere). Following this course, you'll find yourself creating hidden inputs. If you combine this with a server side model binding or automapper it's getting harder to block the manipulation of hidden Id's with tools like firebug, or forgetting to set an attribute on your property, will make it available in your view.

Although it's possible, maybe easy, to block some of those fields, but the more nested Domain/Data objects you have, the more trickier it will become to get this part right. And; what if you are "using" this domainmodel in multiple views? Will they behave the same? Also, bear in mind, that you might want to change your DomainModel for a reason that's not necessarily targeting the view. So with every change in your DomainModel you should be aware that it might affect the view(s) and the security aspects of the controller.

3) In ASP.NET MVC it is common to use validation attributes.

Do you really want your domain to contain metadata about your views? Or apply view-logic to your data-layer? Is your view-validation always the same as the domain-validation? Does it has the same fields (or are some of them a concatenation)? Does it have the same validation logic? Are you are using your domain-models cross application? etc.

I think it's clear this is not the route to take.

4) More

I can give you more scenario's but it's just a matter of taste to what's more appealing. I'll just hope at this point you'll get the point :) Nevertheless, I promised an illustration:

Now, for really dirty and quick-wins it will work, but I don't think you should want it.

It's just a little more effort to build a view-model, which usually is for 80+% similar to the domain model. This might feel like doing unnecessary mappings, but when the first conceptual difference arises, you'll find that it was worth the effort :)

So as an alternative, I propose the following setup for a general case:

create a viewmodel
create a domainmodel
create a datamodel
use a library like automapper to create mapping from one to the other (this will help to map Foo.FooProp to OtherFoo.FooProp)

The benefits are, e.g.; if you create an extra field in one of your database tables, it won't affect your view. It might hit your business layer or mappings, but there it will stop. Of course, most of the time you want to change your view as well, but in this case you don't need to. It therefore keeps the problem isolated in one part of your code.

Web API / data-layer / DTO

First a note: here's a nice article on how DTO (which is not a viewmodel), can be omitted in some scenario's - on which my pragmatic side fully agrees ;-)

Another concrete example of how this will work in a Web-API / ORM (EF) scenario:

Here it's more intuitive, especially when the consumer is a third party, it's unlikely your domain model matches the implementation of your consumer, therefore a viewmodel is more likely to be fully self-contained.

note: The name "domain model", is sometimes mixed with DTO or "Model"

Please note that in Web (or HTTP or REST) API; communications is often done by a data-transfer-object (DTO), which is the actual "thing" that's being exposed on the HTTP-endpoints.

So, where should we put these DTO's you might ask. Are they between domain model and view models? Well, yes; we have already seen that treating them as viewmodel would be hard since the consumer is likely to implement a customized view.

Would the DTO's be able to replace the domainmodels or do they have a reason to exists on their own? In general, the concept of separation would be applicable to the DTO's and domainmodels as well. But then again: you can ask yourself (,and this is where I tend to be a bit pragmatic,); is there enough logic within the domain to explicitly define a domainlayer? I think you'll find that if your service get smaller and smaller, the actual logic, which is part of the domainmodels, decreases as well and may be left out all together and you'll end up with:

EF/(ORM) Entities ↔ DTO/DomainModel ↔ Consumers

disclaimer / note

As @mrjoltcola stated: there is also component over-engineering to keep in mind. If none of the above applies, and the users/programmers can be trusted, you are good to go. But keep in mind that maintainability and re-usability will decrease due to the DomainModel/ViewModel mixing.

Jea answered 14/5, 2014 at 8:19 Comment(3)

This is one of the best answers I've ever read on stack overflow. It's criminal it only has 34 upvotes since 2014! I came here looking for generally applicable patterns for mapping view objects for different scenarios. 1. Single view object to single domain object. 2. Multiple view objects to single domain object. 3. Single view object to multiple related and (potentially temporarily dependent) domain objects. Any thoughts there? – Disappoint 8/7, 2019 at 6:8

Hi, thank you. I think scenario 1 is pretty much covered here. Scenario 2 is pretty much the same; since there will be no mixing the layers and I assume the viewmodels are not bounded together. For scenario 3, especially if combined with 2, you might want to look at this: it isolates your data retrieval preventing possible side affect. Disclaimer: I still tend to "over engineer" things ;-) blogs.cuttingedge.it/steven/posts/2011/… – Jea 8/7, 2019 at 8:26

Yes, that's the way I've gone with my personal projects. Crazy to think that you were doing all this stuff in 2014. The Java world is still catching up. – Disappoint 9/7, 2019 at 0:18

D

18

Opinions vary, from a mix of technical best practices and personal preferences.

There is nothing wrong with using domain objects in your view models, or even using domain objects as your model, and many people do. Some feel strongly about creating view models for every single view, but personally, I feel many apps are over-engineered by developers who learn and repeat one approach that they are comfortable with. The truth is there are several ways to accomplish the goal using newer versions of ASP.NET MVC.

The biggest risk, when you use a common domain class for your view model and your business and persistence layer, is that of model injection. Adding new properties to a model class can expose those properties outside the boundary of the server. An attacker can potentially see properties he should not see (serialization) and alter values he should not alter (model binders).

To guard against injection, use secure practices that are relevant to your overall approach. If you plan to use domain objects, then make sure to use white lists or black lists (inclusion / exclusion) in the controller or via model binder annotations. Black lists are more convenient, but lazy developers writing future revisions may forget about them or not be aware of them. White lists ([Bind(Include=...)] are obligatory, requiring attention when new fields are added, so they act as an inline view model.

Example:

[Bind(Exclude="CompanyId,TenantId")]
public class CustomerModel
{
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public int CompanyId { get; set; } // user cannot inject
    public int TenantId { get; set; }  // ..
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public string Phone { get; set; }
    // ...
}

or

public ActionResult Edit([Bind(Include = "Id,Name,Phone")] CustomerModel customer)
{
    // ...
}

The first sample is a good way to enforce multitenant safety across the application. The second sample allows customizing each action.

Be consistent in your approach and clearly document the approach used in your project for other developers.

I recommend you always use view models for login / profile related features to force yourself to "marshall" the fields between the web constroller and the data access layer as a security exercise.

Domain answered 14/5, 2014 at 8:22 Comment(0)