Talk:Front Controller pattern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer science  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

One might argue that this topic properly belongs in an article about J2EE design patterns - one which I am barely qualified to author. Dmforcier (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs some illustrations[edit]

Reading this I get the feeling the topic is being touched too lightly. This probably needs diagrams to explain this in-depth as is done with other software design patterns.--JamesPoulson (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Limiting examples?[edit]

I don't think that Cairgnorm belongs here. That is totally client side and only handles requests in the sense that it waits for asynchronous replies to its requests to web servers. Although it has a controller in a sense, it doesn't seem to fit with the description of a Front Controller on this page (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

Moved from User talk:Ekerazha: Ekerazha (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why pull the references from Front Controller pattern page? Dmforcier (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that the referenced articles were removed. In such a case, remove the article reference but leave the name of the framework. It was the article that went away, not the framework. Dmforcier (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If the framework is not notable it shouldn't be mentioned, that's spam. What about if everyone adds his own framework to the list? Ekerazha (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Who made you the big spam sheriff of the house? Get off your high horse and follow procedure. If a page is subject to deletion it should be voted on. If you think a reference is spam, say so on the talk page. Don't just take it upon yourself to decide what is important and what isn't. Dmforcier (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really, there's also speedy deletion and prod. However, the articles related to that stuff have been deleted through AfD because they're not notable, live with it. As per WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.", while your stuff is related to content without reliable sources, it doesn't meet WP:GNG and it has been deleted through Afd (WP:Articles_for_deletion/PHP_Fat-Free_Framework, WP:Articles_for_deletion/Kumbia_PHP_Framework) because it's not encyclopedic, so that stuff should be removed. Ekerazha (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The notability guideline actually doesn't apply to article content, only article inclusion. The third paragraph of the lead section of the guideline says so explicitly. The closest thing we have to a guideline that would cover the inclusion/exclusion of such material within an article is WP:HTRIVIA, which is an essay (although an often-cited one). If the inclusion of information in an article is trivial; in other words, not important to the article, it probably shouldn't be included. That might apply to the inclusion of non-notable examples of software in a subject like this one, or it might not.
The only way to truly decide whether or not the information should be included is through consensus. Basically, Ekerazha, you have to convince Dmforcier that it's inappropriate to include that information. Or, Dmforcier, you have to convince Ekerazha that the information should be included. You can also compromise, such as coming up with a way to determine what software should be listed in the article. If you can't come to an agreement between the two of you, there are a number of dispute resolution methods that can be employed. In this case, a third opinion might be helpful. Unfortunately there is no "rule" that determines whether either of you are correct here. The only policy that I think applies to your dispute at the moment is WP:EW, which means you shouldn't be reverting each other the way you were before. You've now stopped that behavior, and you're discussing the topic, which is exactly what should be done.
My suggestion is to move this discussion to the article's talk page, so that anyone else working on the article now or in the future might see what was discussed regarding its contents. That will also make things much easier if you do decide to pursue some sort of dispute resolution. -- Atama 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The advice and policy citations are much appreciated. Thanks. In this case what is in dispute is merely a list of real-world frameworks that implement the pattern. I'm not invested in any of them (they may or may not belong), but I object to the assumption that if something doesn't merit an article, then it can't be mentioned. And also the practice of modding without discussion. I'll move henceforth to the discussion pages. Dmforcier (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, what about if everybody adds his own framework to the list? That's not really intelligent. Also, I think WP:WEIGHT (that I already mentioned) could be applied here. Also, the first who "modded" the article was the one who added that non-notable items. Ekerazha (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Why would that be a bad thing? Shouldn't such a list tend to err on the side of completeness? It's not like anyone is extolling a framework's virtues. That might be spam. But this is is merely an acknowledgment that the framework exists. No way I can consider that spam. Now let's hear some other opinions, shall we? Dmforcier (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem would be creep and bloat; creep as entries creep in one after another, and bloat as the article gets to an unmanageable size. Even before you reach that point you would have a situation where the "examples" section takes up most of the article, which would just make this a poor article (imagine if the article about shoes had a brief introduction then was a long page listing every shoe manufacturer on the planet, past and present). When you set no standards at all for inclusion then it's almost inevitable. I'm sure there are a countless number of frameworks at Sourceforge and elsewhere and listing them all would be impractical. Declaring that a framework can't be included unless it has an article on Wikipedia that can be linked to would be an easy way to restrict the list, but not necessary. Certainly there's some other metric that could be picked to determine what should and shouldn't be included? -- Atama 23:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

() As I said, I'm not qualified to judge whether the frameworks in question merit inclusion. Care to cast the deciding vote? Dmforcier (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Example of what would happen Model–view–controller#Implementations_of_MVC_as_web-based_frameworks (and things could get worse), where everyone spams his own framework. Ekerazha (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't consider your example particularly objectionable, provided that all the items are real. IMO this is a great use of Wikipedia - as a collation point for examples of some (not all) topics. This is not something you're likely to find anywhere else on the web (unlike Shoes ;) ). No, it's not a function served by traditional encyclopedias, but Wikipedia is something new, after all.
I do understand your desire to maintain a certain level of credibility for the list contents, and notability (as in articles) is an easy way to do it. But as you know I think that is too limiting. Perhaps a different criterion could apply - if an example doesn't have an article to reference (for whatever reason), then require an accessible external reference. That would allow users to easily evaluate the merits and keep vaporware out altogether. (With that in mind I'm going to add {{citation needed}} tags to the two examples in question.)
Or just leave it open. I don't consider a few questionable examples to be a significant problem. Certainly not in this article, eh? Dmforcier (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia and that's not the the purpose of Wikipedia, see WP:NOT ("In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful.") and WP:WEIGHT ("An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources."). AfD established there are not reliable sources for the products you "defend", so their weight is zero, they violate WP:WEIGHT and they shouldn't be listed. If everybody adds his own framework (or his own shoes) it's the end. Ekerazha (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Please explain about AfD. I wasn't in on any debate that may have taken place re: article notability. What do you think about the external link idea? Dmforcier (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Look at these: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kumbia_PHP_Framework, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PHP_Fat-Free_Framework. I think the "external link idea" doesn't solve the problem, the problem is that those products are not notable, they lack reliable sources and they shouldn't be mentioned because their weight is zero. Ekerazha (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked. I don't agree. KumbiaPHP has been a sourceforge project for 3+ years, now released. google hits ~125,000, including several apparently intelligent reviews. PHP Fat-Free is much more recent at sourceforge, yet has 51,000 hits. Maybe they don't rate an article, but they're real products. I think you're trying to maintain your "no article, no mention" principle which Atama shot down above. Dmforcier (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Sourceforge (I've a project on sourceforge too), google hits, personal reviews etc. don't make them notable (see WP:GNG, WP:ATA, WP:NOT) and this is why their articles were deleted (through AfD). It's not "my principle", they are not notable (and AfD established this) so WP:WEIGHT says that their weight is zero and they must not be mentioned. Ekerazha (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It does NOT say that. See Atama's March 31 contribution above. Articles and "mentions" are two different things. If you're not going to accept that, then this conversation is pointless and we should proceed to dispute resolution. Dmforcier (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It does say that, it says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources.". Atama didn't talk about WP:WEIGHT. This discussion is undoubtedly pointless as your spamming with non-notable products (without reliable sources) is a blatant violation of WP:WEIGHT. They don't have reliable sources so their weight and significance is zero and they shouldn't be mentioned, the article is not "better" if you mention non-notable, insignificant examples. Let's go for the dispute resolution. Ekerazha (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Sorry for not chiming in until now. WP:WEIGHT would suggest we don't fill up the page with mentions of a ton of software products. We should only include what will help the reader understand what a "Front Controller pattern" is. That's the whole point of this article, not to give software products their just due. The AfD discussions of the past only indicated that the subjects don't merit their own articles, not that they are forbidden from inclusion in any article.

I don't see mentioning a couple of non-notable pieces of software as a "violation" of anything here, but perhaps Dmforcier if you can explain how including them will help the article then maybe Ekerazha would be more responsive to their inclusion. I know that on other articles I've contributed to, if there is a large number of "things" I could include in the article as "examples" to illustrate the subject then I like a good cross-section. Variety helps, if you can show some very different software programs that all use the design pattern and also explain how they are different then that can help show versatility.

As a random example, look at Radar#Applications of Radar. This section of the article on radar shows different applications of radar, in order to demonstrate to the reader how versatile the technology is. Not only can it detect airborne objects, but it can be used underwater, to help predict weather patterns, or even to map the Earth's crust. Note what the section does not do, which is to just list every company that manufactures radar equipment, or every airport that uses radar, etc. Doing so would just be adding trivia to the article, which doesn't benefit the reader. What would be healthiest for this article is to not just list a bunch of examples of software that use the pattern, but to explain how they use it, and what's significant about the way it is used. -- Atama 17:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"The AfD discussions of the past only indicated that the subjects don't merit their own articles, not that they are forbidden from inclusion in any article." That's not what I'm saying. I mentioned those AfD discussions to support the fact that there are no reliable sources for those products (as that was the reason for their deletion), so they don't deserve any mention according to WP:WEIGHT. Neither the fact that they are a "couple" is the point. They are a couple now, if you create this precedent, tomorrow I could add tons of non-notable, insignificant examples. Really, is there a reason why you should add non-notable, insignificant products to the list, when you already have examples with notable products which have a proper article on Wikipedia? Ekerazha (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you that we don't want to allow any and all software because that would lead to a bloated page and certainly would be giving undue weight to the section. But you said "non-notable, insignificant examples". "Notability" and "significance" are not interchangeable. Something can be non-notable, and yet still be of significance to an article. For example, if you have an article on a major corporation, it would be significant to name the CEO of the company, even if the CEO is not notable enough to have his or her own article. In this case, that software might be significant enough in the context of the article to be mentioned. I suggest you allow Dmforcier to make an argument as to the significance of the software before deciding whether or not it merits mention in the article. -- Atama 17:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe I already have. They are open source products (so the reader can examine the architectures for themselves), that are available in a released form, and they are reviewed and discussed online.
The problem is that my criteria are not Ekerazha's criteria. He refuses to accept the distinction between meriting an article and meriting a mention. Why aren't the other examples in question? Presumably because they have articles. If that is Ekerazha's criterion, then nothing I say short of establishing notability for an article will satisfy him.
I believe WP:WEIGHT is irrelevant to this question as it deals, in its context in WP:NPOV, with points of view and disputes, not with mere mentions of existence. However, given that weight is established through "reliable sources", let's look at the existence of reliable sources. Ekerazha claims "that there are no reliable sources for those products". The definition of "reliable sources" in WP:V says "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." In this case the context is an example of the topic. Does the example exist, does it implement the topic, and has a neutral 3rd party published about it? In this context I have located reliable sources and all that is required is a citation of one. (But Ekerazha has also dismissed that idea.)
Perhaps we should be asking Ekerazha what he considers a reliable source to be in this context. Dmforcier (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a pretty lengthy policy about reliable sources, but the simplest way to determine whether or not a source is reliable is editorial oversight. That's just common sense. Anybody can say anything about anything, especially on the internet. If a source has editors who perform fact-checking or do some research to vouch for the information, then you're not just taking the word of some random person on the web. Magazines, newspapers, published books, peer-reviewed research papers, those all tend to have editorial oversight. If you can find a source like that, then it can generally be trusted. Unreliable (or rarely reliable) sources include blogs, discussion forums, and most web pages. This is situational, of course, I doubt anyone would challenge using the McDonald's web site as a reference to show that they sell french fries, for example (which fits in with the quote you used above about context).
Now, do you have sources that review and/or discuss the Front Controller as used by Kumbia and Fat-Free? Because if you do, I have an idea that would hopefully satisfy Ekerazha, and also help expand the article.
Right now, the article is pretty vague about how the Front Controller actually functions. If we could use either Fat-Free or Kumbia as an example, perhaps the functionality could be described in greater depth to help the reader understand exactly what the pattern does. If we do this, keep in mind a few things... First, we don't want to be overly verbose (again, there are concerns about undue weight as Ekerazha explained), so it can't be too long. It also can't be too "techie", so full of jargon that your reader is going to be confused. We can use wikilinks to help with some of the more technical terms, so it doesn't have to be dumbed-down too much, but if a reader's eyes glaze over then the article fails. Finally, we do need the information to be verifiable, and that's where your sources come into play.
Do you think we'd be able to do this? We don't need to be experts to write this stuff, we just need to be able to properly use the information already provided by experts about the subject. The quality of your sources will be the most important thing here. -- Atama 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice try. ;) No, I have neither the time nor the inclination for such a project. Dmforcier (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I don't say "notability" and "significance" are interchangeable. In this case those products are both non-notable and non-significant, however it's true the latter is the most relevant here. "Notability" requires reliable sources, but "significance" requires reliable sources too (according to WP:WEIGHT). WP:WEIGHT says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources.", here the aspect is "X and Y use this pattern too" and I think it isn't significant according to WP:WEIGHT, as they lack reliable sources. I can change my opinion only if you find reliable sources (as explained by Atama) which cover those products about this topic, so they will be WP:WEIGHT compliant. Ekerazha (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the revision without non-significant products if you can't find any reliable source (according to WP:WEIGHT). Ekerazha (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Now I know where the dogmatism comes from: you can't seem to make practical distinctions. Look, you can say that the two concepts are not interchangeable, but if you evaluate them using identical criteria, then as a practical matter they are one and the same thing. If they are in fact different, then you can't apply the criteria for notability to significance; it must have its own, different.
It has become all too obvious that nothing we can say is going to change your mind. (I've never been much of a hard rock miner.) But please do entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. My work here is over. Dmforcier (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
True. The truth is that "reliable sources" are a requirement for both notability and significance. Significance could require a less comprehensive context-specific coverage, still they must be reliable sources. These are Wikipedia's rules, not mine. Find reliable sources and I'll change my mind. Ekerazha (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong examples[edit]

The listed examples are all MVC, not Front Controller. An example for Front Controller would be a Java servlet. -- (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

MVC is not Front Controller[edit]

In a front controller design, the user is always on the main page called the front controller. The main page calls other web pages which return to the main page. You can't go to the single page because you lack the setup required by the main page. (Front Controler is not a restful design & I personally hate it... but I recognize it when I see it.) The Front Controller controls the entire web application. MVC is more of a sub unit. Each sub unit is Model,View,Controller. There can be multiple controllers. Just as there can be multiple access points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)