Talk:Model–view–presenter

MVP vs. MVC vs. MVA

It's somewhat misleading to suggest the presenter in MVP plays an analogous role to the controller in MVC. The relationships between the three components are significantly different, specifically in that the P in MVP sits somewhat "in between" the M and V (see the original papers cited in the article) while the C in MVC explicitly does not sit between the M and V.

A possible exception to this is the recent wave of web frameworks that call themselves MVC but don't really have much to do with MVC in its original sense. I note that the MVC page itself was substantially rewritten not long ago to avoid placing too much emphasis on this modern and fundamentally different interpretation of the term.

Not being a veteran Wikipedian, I'll leave it to someone more experienced to decide whether the comment I've marked should be removed altogether, or perhaps qualified because of the web framework distortion of the original MVC. However, I've marked it as requiring citation, because it's definitely not unambiguously correct as-is. 82.71.32.108 (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I deleted that text.   Thanks for the suggestion.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I just came to the talk page to say this article needs a good comparison MVC vs. MVP. It sounds like there was a not-so-good one before, but hopefully someone can clarify. sbump (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There is also an article about the Model View Adapter Pattern, which is even closer. Maybe it's parallel evolution? --47.70.172.238 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad Article

Someone who knows more about MVP than the seriously narrow definition given here should rewrite this article.

See the answer to this question for starters.

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/60774/model-view-presenter-implementation-thoughts

I'd do it myself but I can't find any suitably complete online sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.140.254 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is very unclear what terms like presenter, model, and interface mean in this article (usage seems to conflict). The article does not start with concrete concepts such as user, terminal-device, and server. If these were incorporated into the diagram it would help a great deal. A proper definition of each of the key terms would be very useful, eg what is the 'model' actually modelling? FreeFlow99 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

More Design-Patterns Rubbish

It's just more Design-Patterns rubbish so I wouldn't bother. Let it die with all the other noughties nonsense that will be forgotten in 20 years. These 'templates' do not do anything except confuse and slow down the design process, they benefit NO-ONE. 203.206.38.2 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)