By picking MVC for developing our new site, I find myself in the midst of "best practices" being developed around me in apparent real time. Two weeks ago, NerdDinner was my guide but with the development of MVC 2, even it seems outdated. It's an thrilling experience and I feel privileged to be in close contact with intelligent programmers daily.
Right now I've stumbled upon an issue I can't seem to get a straight answer on - from all the blogs anyway - and I'd like to get some insight from the community. It's about Editing (read: Edit action). The bulk of material out there, tutorials and blogs, deal with creating and view the model. So while this question may not spell out a question, I hope to get some discussion going, contributing to my decision about the path of development I'm to take.
My model represents a user with several fields like name, address and email. All the names, in fact, on field each for first name, last name and middle name. The Details view displays all these fields but you can change only one set of fields at a time, for instance, your names. The user expands a form while the other fields are still visible above and below. So the form that is posted back contains a subset of the fields representing the model.
While this is appealing to us and our layout concerns, for various reasons, it is to be shunned by serious MVC-developers. I've been reading about some patterns and best practices and it seems that this is not in key with the paradigm of viewmodel == view. Or have I got it wrong?
Anyway, NerdDinner dictates using FormCollection och UpdateModel. All the null fields are happily ignored. Since then, the MVC-community has abandoned this approach to such a degree that a bug in MVC 2 was not discovered. UpdateModel does not work without a complete model in your formcollection.
The view model pattern receiving most praise seems to be Dedicated view model that contains a custom view model entity and is the only one that my design issue could be made compatible with. It entails a tedious amount of mapping, albeit lightened by the use of AutoMapper and the ideas of Jimmy Bogard, that may or may not be worthwhile. He also proposes a 1:1 relationship between view and view model.
In keeping with these design paradigms, I am to create a view and associated view for each of my expanding sets of fields. The view models would each be nearly identical, differing only in the fields which are read-only, the views also containing much repeated markup. This seems absurd to me. In future I may want to be able to display two, more or all sets of fields open simultaneously.
I will most attentively read the discussion I hope to spark. Many thanks in advance.
