Develop Reference

Clean Architecture: How to reflect the data layer's changes in the UI

I'm trying to make a design based on the Uncle Bob's Clean Architecture in Android.
The problem:
I'd like to solve is how to make the changes generated in one repository to be reflected in other parts of the app, like other repositories or Views.
The example
I've designed a VERY simplified example for this example. Please notice that boundary interfaces has been removed to keep the diagrams small.
Imagine an app that shows a list of videos (with title, thumnail and like count), clicking a video you can see the detail (there you can like/dislike the video).
Additionally the app has an statistics system that counts the number of videos the user liked or disliked.
The main classes for this app could be:
For the Videos part/module:
For the Stats part/module:
The target
Now imagine you check your stats, then navigate the list of videos, open the detail of one, and click the like button.
After the like is sent to the server, there are several elements of the apps that should be aware of the change:
Of course the detail view, should be updated with the changes (this can be made through callbacks so no problem)
The list of videos should update the "likes" count for the given video
The StatsRepository may want to update/invalidate the caches after voting a new video
If the list of stats is visible (imagine a split screen) it should also show the updated stats (or at least receive the event for re-query the data)
The Question
What are the common patterns to solve this kind of communication?
Please make your answer as complete as you can, specifying where the events are generated, how they get propagated though the app, etc.
Note: Bounties will be given to complete answers

Publish / Subscribe
Typically, for n:m communication (n senders may send a message to m receivers, while all senders and receivers do not know each other) you'll use a publish/subscribe pattern.
There are lots of libraries implementing such a communication style, for Java there is for example an EventBus implementation in the Guava library.
For in-app communication these libraries are typically called EventBus or EventManager and send/receive events.
Domain Events
Suppose you now created an event VideoRatedEvent, which signals that a user has either liked or disliked a video.
These type of events are referred to as Domain Events. The event class is a simple POJO and might look like this:
class VideoRatedEvent {
/** The video that was rated */
public Video video;
/** The user that triggered this event */
public User user;
/** True if the user liked the video, false if the user disliked the video */
public boolean liked;
}
Dispatch events
Now each time your users like or dislike a video, you'll need to dispatch a VideoRatedEvent.
With Guava, you'll simply pass an instantiated event object to object to EventBus.post(myVideoRatedEvent).
Ideally the events are generated in your domain objects and are dispatched within the persisting transaction (see this blog post for details).
That means that as your domain model state is persisted, the events are dispatched.
Event Listeners
In your application, all components affected by an event can now listen to the domain events.
In your particular example, the VideoDetailView or StatsRepository might be event listeners for the VideoRatedEvent.
Of course, you will need to register those to the Guava EventBus with EventBus.register(Object).

This is my personal 5cents and maybe not closely enough related to your example of "The Clean Architecure".
I usually try to force a kind of MVC upon androids activities and fragments and use publish/subscribe for communication. As components I have model classes that handle business logic and the data state. They data changing methods are only to be called by the controller classes which usually is the activity class and also handles session state. I use fragments to manage different view parts of the application and views under those fragments (obviously). All fragments subscribe to one or more topics. I use my own simple DataDistributionService which handles different topics, takes messages from registered publishers and relays them to all subscribers. (partly influenced by the OMGs DDS but MUCH MUCH more primitive) A simple application would only have a single topic e.g. "Main".
Every part of view interaction (touches etc) is handled by its fragment first. The fragment can potentially change a few things without sending notifications. E.g. switching the subrange of rendered data elements if the rest of the app does not need to know/react. Otherwise the fragment publishes a ViewRequest(...) containing the necessary parameters to the DDS.
The DDS broadcasts that message and at some point reaches a controller. This can simply be the main activity or a specific controller instance. There should be only ONE controller so that the request is only handled once. The controller basically has a long list of request handling code. When a request arrives the controller calls to the business logic in the model. The controller also handles other view related things like arranging the view (tabs) or starting dialogs for user input (overwrite file?) and other things that the model is not supposed to know about but influences (Throw new NoOverWritePermissionException())
Once the model changes are done the controller decides if an update notification has to be send. (usually it does). That way the model classes do not need to listen or send messages and only take care of busines logic and consistent state. The update notification ist broadcasted and received by the fragments which then run "updateFromModel()".
Effects:
Commands are global. Any ViewRequest or other kind of request can be send from anywhere the DDS can be accessed. Fragments do not have to provide a listener class and no higher instance has to implement listeners for their instanced fragments. If a new fragment does not require new Requests it can be added without any change to controller classes.
Model classes do not need to know about the communication at all. It can be hard enough to keep consistent state and handle all the data management. No message handling or session state handling is necessary. However the model might not be proteced against malicous calls from the view. But that is a general problem and cannot really be prevented if the model has to give out references at some point. If your app is fine with a model that only passes copies/flat data its possible. But at some point the ArrayAdapter simply needs access to the bitmaps he is supposed to draw in the gridview. If you cannot afford copies, you always have the risk of "view makes a changing call to the model". Different battlefield...
Update calls might be too simple. If the update of a fragment is expensive (OpenGL fragment reloading textures...) you want to have more detailed update information. The controler COULD send a more detailed notification however it actually should not have to/be able to know what parts of the model exactly changed. Sending update notes from the model is ugly. Not only would the model have to implement messaging but it also gets very chaotic with mixed notifications. The controler can divide update notifications and others a bit by using topics. E.g. a specific topic for changes to your video resources. That way fragments can decide which topics they subscribe to. Other than that you want to have a model that can be queried for changed values. Timestamp etc. I have an app where the user draws shapes on canvas. They get rendered to bitmaps and are used as textures in an OpenGL view. I certainly don't want to reload textures everytime "updateFromModel()" is called in the GLViewFragment.
Dependency Rule:
Probably not respected all the time. If the controller handles a tab switch it can simply call "seletTab()" on a TabHost and therefore have a dependency to outer circles. You can turn it into a message but then it is still a logical dependency. If the controller part has to organize some elements of the view (show the image-editor-fragment-tab automatically after loading an image via the image-gallery-fragmen-tab) you cannot avoid dependencies completely. Maybe you can get it done by modelling viewstate and have your view parts organize themselves from viewstate.currentUseCase or smth like that. But if you need global control over the view of your app you will get problems with this dependency rule I'd say. What if you try to save some data and your model asks for overwrite permission? You need to create some kind of UI for that. Dependency again. You can send a message to the view and hope that a DialogFragment picks it up. If it exists in the extremely modular world described at your link.
Entities:
are the model classes in my approach. That is pretty close to the link you provided.
Use Cases:
I do not have those explicitly modelled for now. Atm I am working on editors for videogame assets. Drawing shapes in one fragment, applying shading values in another fragment, saving/loading in a galleryfragment, exporting to a texture atlas in another one ... stuff like that. I would add Use Cases as some kind of Request subset. Basically a Use Case as a set of rules which request in which order are allowed/required/expected/forbidden etc. I would build them like transactions so that a Use Case can keep progressing, can be finished, can be cancelled and maybe even rolled back. E.g. a Use Case would define the order of saving a fresh drawn image. Including posting a Dialog to ask for overwrite permission and roll back if permission is not give or time out is reached. But Use Cases are defined in many different ways. Some apps have a single Use Case for an hour of active user interaction, some apps have 50 Use Cases just to get money from an atm. ;)
Interface Adapters:
Here it gets a bit complicated. To me this seems to be extremely high level for android apps. It states "The Ring of Interface Adapters contains the whole MVC architecture of a GUI". I cannot really wrap my head around that. Maybe you are building far more complicated apps than I do.
Frameworks and Drivers:
Not sure what to think of this one. "The web is a detail, the database is a detail..." and the graphic contains "UI" in this Ring as well. Too much for my little head
Lets check the other "asserts"
Independent of Frameworks. The architecture does not depend on the existence of some library of feature laden software. This allows you to use such frameworks as tools, rather than having to cram your system into their limited constraints.
Hm yeah well, if you run your own architecture that is what you get.
Testable. The business rules can be tested without the UI, Database, Web Server, or any other external element.
As in my approach model classes neither know about controllers or views nor about the message passing. One can test state consistency with just those classes alone.
Independent of UI. The UI can change easily, without changing the rest of the system. A Web UI could be replaced with a console UI, for example, without changing the business rules.
Again a bit overkill for android is it not? Independence yes. In my approach you can add or remove fragments as long as they do not require explicit handling somewhere higher up. But replacing a Web UI with a console UI and have the system run like before is a wet dream of architecture freaks. Some UI elements are integral part of the provided service. Of course i can easily swap the canvas drawing fragment for a console drawing fragment, or the classic photo fragment for a 'take picture with console' fragment but that does not mean the application still works. Technically its fine in my approach. If you implement an ascii console video player you can render the videos there and no other part of the app will necessarily care. However it COULD be that the set of requests that the controller supports does not align well with the new console UI or that a Use Case is not designed for the order in which a video needs to be accessed via a console interface. The view is not always the unimportant presenting slave that many architecture gurus like to see it as.
Independent of Database. You can swap out Oracle or SQL Server, for Mongo, BigTable, CouchDB, or something else. Your business rules are not bound to the database.
Yeah, so? How is that directly related to your architecture? Use the right adapters and abstraction and you can have that in a hello world app.
Independent of any external agency. In fact your business rules simply don’t know anything at all about the outside world.
Same here. If you want modularized independent code then write it. Hard to say anything specific about that.

Combining MVC, DAO/Repository Pattern and Swing for Java GUI Applications

I am trying to create a graphical flashcards app from scratch. I have a few questions:
a. I have used Swing to build some apps in the past, calculator app. But I felt that was a trivial application so I want to ramp up my skills as a Java developer.
b. I have been told that a gold standard is to build a small application that uses one of these: MVC, MVM, MVVM and so on.And since I am learning design patterns, I was hoping to use it in the application.
c. My classes are such:
A model: Flashcard.java(It has a list of answers, a list of
pictures, a question), A FlashCard Manager(to perform CRUD)
Different view classes: GUI interface
Controller: All the event listeners
App: To initialize the app
d. I have tried to read online examples of such a combination and what was proposed in for the Manager or DAO, was to have it connect to JDBC for the database. I am trying to simulate that by using a HashMap> for the same purpose.Is that correct or do I have to use JDBC or SQLite?
e. Also am I supposed to have a controller-view pair, that is for every JComponent that uses an event listener or a controller for windows( startup window, main application window, child windows)?
f. Also should the controller class be an interface for all these controllers?
I do not have code because I am still developing it but I just wanted to get a general idea. Thanks for answering my questions.

b. I have been told that a gold standard is to build a small application that uses one of these: MVC, MVM, MVVM and so on.And since I am learning design patterns, I was hoping to use it in the application.
This both right and wrong. Some API's simply don't support the notion of a pure MVC (or variation). Swing for example implements a form of MVC of it's own which is more like M-VC, where the model is separate, but the view and controller are bound.
Think about a JButton. Do you ever apply a controller to it? You can add listeners to it, you can even add listeners directly to it's model, but it has it's own internal control mechanism, which generates events based on keyboard and mouse interaction.
You need to beware of when a MVC might not be suitable or where the amount of work to implement a pure MVC is not worth the effort.
Having said that, you can wrap Swing UI's in another MVC layer, but you need to think about it at a different level. Instead of each controller been considered a "view", you look at the container, which might contain multiple controls and see it as the "view", which a controller then manages.
d. I have tried to read online examples of such a combination and what was proposed in for the Manager or DAO, was to have it connect to JDBC for the database. I am trying to simulate that by using a HashMap> for the same purpose.Is that correct or do I have to use JDBC or SQLite?
This is not an unreasonable idea, however, you want to ensure that the public interface remains constant. This would allow you to change the implementation at a later date to use JDBC or a web service without having to rewrite the code that depends on it
e. Also am I supposed to have a controller-view pair, that is for every JComponent that uses an event listener or a controller for windows( startup window, main application window, child windows)?
This will depend. I tend to avoid exposing individual components, as this exposes them to unwanted modifications (you may not want a controller to be able to change the text of a button for example)
As a general rule of thumb, I try to make the relationship between the controller and the view as vanilla as possible, meaning that the controller shouldn't care about how the view is implemented, only that it upholds the contract between the it subscribes to.
This generally means I have a functional view, which is contracted to produce certain events/data and allows certain interaction (from the controller)
f. Also should the controller class be an interface for all these controllers?
IMHO, yes. This allows a view/controller/model to be implemented differently, but allows the rest of the code to continue working with it without the need to be modified.
The bottom line is, implementing a MVC over Swing is not as simple as people think it is. It takes some planning and consideration, but it is doable.
For a more detailed example, have a look at Java and GUI - Where do ActionListeners belong according to MVC pattern?

Java; Multiple MVC and Swing Relationships Best Practice?

I am attempting to develop a "Person database" Java Swing application, using MVC design paradigm with Observer/Observable. Here is a simplified abstract of M/V/Cs I am using:
App
AppModel
(Empty right now, possibly i'll store certain static application info such as version number here)
AppView
(Creates a JFrame and a few other Swing components)
AppController
(Instantiates AppModel, AppView and also a PersonController and a PersonListController)
Person
PersonModel
(Stores info for 1 person)
PersonView
(Displays a number of form fields inside a JPanel (i.e Name, Age, Phone number). Observes PersonModel.)
PersonController
(Instantiates PersonView. Observes PersonView. Instantiates PersonModel. Updates PersonModel.)
PersonList
PersonListModel
(Stores a list of Persons)
PersonListView
(Displays a list of persons with appropriate Add / Delete buttons. Observes PersonList.)
PersonListController
(Instantiates PersonListView. Observes PersonListView. Instantiates PersonListModel. Updates PersonListModel)
Also, a 'bootstrap', where the app starts. It creates a new AppController.
In the real application, there will be more (and different) Model/View/Controller objects but I want to keep this example simple.
I dont understand how I can go about 'merging' these seperate views into one UI while maintaining a good seperation of concerns.
Take for example the PersonListView. IMHO it doesn't need to care about the AppView (with the JFrame etc). PersonListView just needs to look at its own model and update itself accordingly. However, I cannot enforce that because the PersonListView's own Swing components need to be added to the Swing components of another view, the AppView.
So at the moment the AppController is instantiating its own View, plus indirectly a PersonView and PersonListView (via instantiation of their controllers). AppController then grabs the 'main' Jpanel for each view, grabs the 'parent' Swing components they should be added to on the AppView, and adds them.
This just doesnt seem the right way to do it to me. Im pulling Swing-related members from their hiding places and messing with them around inside a controller. In fact instantiating the model and view within the controller seems bad too, but I cant figure out a better way.
I've seen enough 'simple MVC' tutorials recently that I'm dreaming of the bloody things - but not one tutorial seems to go into the relationships of multiple models, views, controllers, especially where it concerns Swing. Maybe I am wrong and the App should have just one view? Maybe I need a 'Relationship' class that sort of takes every single Model/View/Controller and instantiates stuff appropriately?
Any advice would be most appreciated as Im completely at a loss!

This is where a strict MVC paradigm falls down (in Swing anyway, and it may explains why Swing is written the way it is).
Swing combines the view and control elements together, leaving the model separate. That means, you are free to add a view to any other view and the control follows (the model remains dynamic).
I have a developer who insists on using the strict approach to MVC and they still can't tell me the order of precedence. ie should the control know about the view or should the view know about the control - which one plugins into the other. Personally, I'm to lazy and simply follow the Swing implementation.
To my mind, if you want to follow a strict MVC, I'd basically allow for a public method in your controller that allows access to the overall view (say a JPanel with all the components on it that makes up the view for example).
Think about the JComboBox or JSpinner for example. They both have a number of components that make up the view (editors, buttons, etc), but you have single access point, the component itself...
Your next problem is going to be how to combine various views into a single over all view.
Personally, I would create a group controller of some kind that allowed you to supply the various, known, controllers together (setPersonList for example), as the "master" controller is going to need to know about these other controllers any way, as it needs to know how to layout them out.
IMHO

GWT - Separating role of presenter from activity

What advantages could be gained from divesting the role of presenter from an activity?
What are the roles/concerns that could be separated in order to dissect an activity from being a presenter?
Why would you want to separate them into two distinct concerns?
Under what circumstances would it make sense not to unify them?
Give examples, pros or cons.

I can see two main reasons to separate presenters from activities: reusability and testability.
Real use case for reusability: we have an illustration entity with properties like the photographer, copyright and date of shooting, which can be linked to documents. The legend of is on the relationship between the document and the illustration. You can edit both the illustration and the legend on their own screen, but we also wanted that the illustration could be edited from the legend screen. So we made a presenter for the illustration screen. The illustration activity is a really thin wrapper around that presenter, and the legend activity is a bit more complex, but reuses the presenter and view. The activities' responsibility is to provide the RequestContexts and do the fire() (the save/cancel buttons are on another activity, similar to the actions on Google Groups).
Hypothetical use cases for reusability:
for different form-factors, you want to aggregate things on the same screen or separate them on their own screen (e.g. master/detail), and when you aggregate them, having two activities might not be ideal. Using thin activities in the phone form-factor allows you to reuse the components (presenter/view) within a single activity in the tablet or desktop form factors.
reusing the same presenter on different platforms: you could possibly use the same presenter on an Android app and a web app (and even possibly an iOS app through java2objc), the view would be a native Android view or a GWT-based view, and the navigation would be handled by Android activities and/or fragments vs. GWT activities and places.
About testability (this is theoretical), you could then test your presenter without the hassle of the activity lifecycle (mocking the view), and then separately test the lifecycle (whether it correctly initializes and cleans up the presenter, fetches/caches the data, etc. mocking the presenter).
See also the commit message of https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=10185
Ray's idea was to make MVP an implementation detail of widgets, just like cell widgets use internal presenters today. From the outside they're just widgets that you can compose tha way you want; on the inside they use MVP so you can test them without the need for a GWTTestCase.

First of all two Thanks for question which pushes me in to the longest research ever . :)
According to Thomos Broyer here.
Activity cannot talk with widgets,which presenter can do.
Two main areas of concern:
1- getting the data into the widgets:
how can this design be improved ?
Server (RequestFactory) ---> Activity ---> WidgetPresenter ---> Widget
here, RequestFactory hands in data to Activity, which then gives it to
the Presenter
which subsequently hands it to the widget.
2- getting the data from the widgets to the server
widget ---> WidgetPresenter ---> Activity ---> Server(RequestFactory)

GWT: Places, History and MVP by Example

Say I want to create a GWT app that consists of two simple "screens":
A Main Menu that users see when the app first starts up (they go to specific URL) - forget login screens, etc., for this simple example; and
An Edit Preferences "page"/screen/view that takes the place of the Main Menu when the user clicks a button on the Main Menu; this Edit Preferences screen also has a button that takes the user back to the Main Menu; thus
The user can simply go back and forth between the Main Menu and Edit Preference "pages" (this is GWT so its actually a single-page app) all day long
So the pseudo-code for this might look like:
public class MainMenuPresenter implements Presenter {
// mainMenuScreen may be a Composite that contains a Button for
// switching/navigating to the EditPreferencesView
private MainMenuView mainMenuScreen;
}
public class EditPreferencesPresenter implements Presenter {
// editPrefsScreen may be a Composite that contains a Button for
// switching/navigating back to the MainMenuView
private EditPreferencesView editPrefsScreen;
}
Questions:
How does a Place and its associated Activities fit into this paradigm? If it's a choice between MVP and Places/Activities, then how would this example look using the Activities/Places paradigm?
If MVP and Activities/Places can play nicely together (and are not mutually exclusive), then how could we implement GWT's History API here so that we can set MainMenuView as one "place" in history, EditPreferencesView as a second "place", and then allow the user to hit the Back/Forward browser buttons and keep toggling between them?
If MVP and Activities/Places are mutually exclusive, and I have to choose between the two, is there anything different about the code in Question #2 above that needs to change?
I'm also interested in how a Place ties into an ActivityManager, and how/who fires/handles PlaceChangeEvents, but I'll save that for later; I need to understand these concepts before I can move on to those. Thanks in advance!

I'll try to outline an example setup that could work in your situation. There are lots of variations, but I'd like to concentrate on a simple one (and encourage you to think up where this can be adjusted).
1. Define URL tokens
Choose some URL tokens like "#mainmenu" and "#editprefs" which will be appended to the host page's URL. They will be used for the browser history, so the back and forward buttons work etc.
The URL handling will be done automatically for you by DefaultHistorian. The PlaceChangeEvent will be fired by PlaceController.
2. Map tokens to Place objects
A Place object is simply the object oriented abstraction of a token - this is useful, because more advanced tokens can also take parameters which need to be parsed. You'll need a way to map the tokens to Place objects. This is the responsibility of PlaceHistoryMapper.
In my example, we'd simply implement PlaceHistoryMapper manually to map "#mainmenu" to a MainMenuPlace and "#editprefs" to an EditPreferencesPlace.
[Alternatively, it's also possible to use the #WithTokenizers annotation and implement an (empty) PlaceTokenizer for every type of place. You could then use the #Prefix annotation to specify "mainmenu" and "editprefs" as the tokens.]
3. Map the Places to Activities
A Place object itself doesn't do anything - as explained above, it's basically just an abstract token. The actual code will be run in an Activity. So you'll have to map Places to Activities. This is the responsibility of ActivityMapper.
In my example you'd implement it to map MainMenuPlace to a MainMenuActivity and EditPreferencePlace to an EditPreferenceActivity.
4. Activities and Presenters
For simplicity, in my example the Activities would also implement the Presenter. So MainMenuActivity would implement MainMenuPresenter. This is not necessary at all, but maybe a nice starting point. And this is where Places+Activities can connect with MVP. The two concepts don't require each other, but they work nicely together:
Activities+Places is basically about the connection between the history token and an Activity.
MVP is basically about the connection between a Presenter and a View.
If you let an Activity (or one of its delegates) implement a Presenter, you have connected both.
5. Quick overview
"#mainMenu"
---(PlaceHistoryMapper)---> MainMenuPlace
---(ActivityMapper)---> MainMenuActivity implements MainMenuPresenter