Question

I am working with Codeignitor 2.x and I was originally using controllers as modules (though not completely HMVC), in that I had a Top Level controller that would call other lower level controllers. My thinking was that because these lower level controllers were still interacting with the view, that they should remain controllers rather than models or drivers.

What I found, however, is that each instance of a controller also spawns a new instance of CI. So I would have 3 or 4 instances of CI running for each request. Ton of overhead, and also caused session issues.

I have since moved these lower level controllers into the library as drivers. They now capture the CI instance in the construct method, and make modifications to it. This makes it VERY nice to work with, and doesn’t require the HMVC extension. The drivers are not externally callable either, so it allows me to funnel all requests through specific entry points.

My question is whether this is structurally correct. I have always held the notion that drivers should only modify the data they are provided through their method calls, but many of these drivers will pull information directly from GET and POST, and while they will not directly append to the View, they are often accessing view files, and passing the processed view to the CI instance for output.

[EDIT] A little more context:
One of the drivers I have created is essentially a user login driver called ‘Access’. It makes calls to the ‘User’ model for create/login/logout methods. The driver uses the POST data to check the User model, then loads the correct view with errors and whatever is needed. The idea, being, with 2 lines, I can include this driver in any controller throughout the project, so there is a significant decrease in code redundancy. Again, I know that the drivers should be confined to their scope, however the driver does not modify anything outside it’s scope, but simply returns the view it has created.

Is there another method to for doing this that is more inline with straight MVC?

Answer 1

I can’t say whether it is right or wrong. But if I were you, I wouldn’t do that. I’d probably refactor some of the code. I’d make sure that they don’t grab and manipulate data directly from the $_GET or $_POST superglobals. Instead, pass in some data as arguments to a function call. This would make testing easier, since you don’t have to simulate a GET or a POST request. While technically, you could just set the value for the superglobals manually from the code, but I’d not recommend doing that. Supplying data as arguments would be much better, especially if you want to write test cases that are to be executed subsequently. Plus, having the libraries interacting with the scopes beyond its own might introduce some hidden gotchas.

In my opinion, libraries are meant to be something like modules, where you can just drag and drop, and then use them without any hassle. If your code really needs to grab or manipulate values from $_GET or $_POST, maybe they are meant to be models instead. Also, you might want to think whether your code is actually a library or not. Ask yourself, will this code be useful outside this application? Or is it highly dependent and can only be useful for this particular app? If you say yes to the latter, then it’s probably should be a model instead of a library. Last thing, you should leave the views to the controller. Just return the data you need from the library/model method then pass it to the view from the controller.