Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 557417
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T12:01:27+00:00 2026-05-13T12:01:27+00:00

Should i consider ASP.NET MVC ViewModels only containing flat and primitypes types or it

  • 0

Should i consider ASP.NET MVC ViewModels only containing flat and primitypes types or it should contains complex Core/Domain model types ?

I’m looking for best practices.

Thanks.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T12:01:27+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 12:01 pm

    Do what makes sense.

    There are no authoritative sources that will tell you that using ViewModel with primitive types is going to kill kittens, because they would be wrong. And for every expert out there who tells you that using ViewData with magic strings is perfectly OK, there will be purists out there who will tell you that strongly-typed objects are the only way to go.

    I write applications that read from a database and display data in a web page. I have tried it both ways (using ViewData and using a ViewModel object), and I am happiest when I have a ViewModel object to project into the web page. The ViewModel class is a place to encapsulate things like validation and view logic, if I need them, and it provides the data structure and strong typing that I like.

    If I just want to display a record from one of my Linq to SQL classes, and I don’t need extras such as dropdown data lists, I might use the Linq to SQL object directly. But if I do have extras, I put everything into a ViewModel class, and project that ViewModel instance (or an IEnumerable or IQueryable of them) into the view.

    So I seldom use ViewData, but that’s just my style. It’s nice to know that it’s still there if I need it.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.