Re: MVC, DBA, CoreData (was: CoreData : fundamental (or not) questions)
Re: MVC, DBA, CoreData (was: CoreData : fundamental (or not) questions)
- Subject: Re: MVC, DBA, CoreData (was: CoreData : fundamental (or not) questions)
- From: mmalcolm crawford <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:53:54 -0800
On Mar 19, 2006, at 1:14 PM, Joshua Scott Emmons wrote:
Core data is even worse. We get explanations like, "The MVC and
object modeling design patterns are essential determinants of the
Core Data architecture," and "Core Data is tightly integrated with
the Cocoa bindings technology." But I haven't found a place yet
where it's laid out that a MOC is a Controller and the store is a
Model and who knows what the persistent store coordinator is?
It's made clear that managed objects are the model objects --
everything else by definition must not be, and since they're not view
objects that only leaves one option...
The store is not a model. It's a container for model objects.
And the only place I've ever seen an explanation of bindings and
CoreData is when you have IB create an interface for you by
dragging an entity onto a window.
This is because bindings and Core Data are largely orthogonal. There
are some special behaviours that, say, NSContoller subclasses have to
better support Core Data, but the design patterns for bindings are
the same whether you're or not you're using Core Data.
And then there's particle/wave-like arguments to top it off. The
MOC can be a Model (when you're using it as a scratch pad) -or- it
can be a Controller (when you're using it to dispatch messages to
the store coordinator).
No, the MOC is a controller. It's not clear why you would think it
is a model object?
mmalc
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden