avoiding extreme measures

[Ellen Degeneres' tweaking her face <[e-mail]>]

Ellen Degeneres and Portia De Rossi may have had their fair share of problems....
But did Ellen get plastic surgery... and it still didn't work??


Find out what she did.  The instant-lift.

View Pics that sparked Rumors: / http://www.fieldsskincare.com/typify-59753_4442-irreversibility.htm


We think that Ellen learned from horror shows like Meg Ryan and Nicole Kidman...

Heres what she really did to turn back the clock 20 yrs -> http://www.fieldsskincare.com/typify-59753_4442-irreversibility.htm






- Celeb Dirty Laundry












We hope you enjoyed this Celeb Update. 
To stop further messages - write Update Notice Messages
118 Kecks Lane-Ruff Dale- Pennsylvania 15679 or visit http://www.fieldsskincare.com/429/unidentified/unhorse.php

Isn't it that MVC is used to architect the whole (web) application, while MVVM is used inside View component of MVC ? So the whole paradigm would be M(VVM)CTrue, but "where they are used" was not the question (or the point of my answer). My point is that controllers are still useful in MVVM.I agree. My comment was caused by sudden enlightement and not because I disagreed with you. We also used controllers to control the "flow" of views in a wizard-like UI.The cause of confusion comes from what ASP.NET MVC calls "ViewModel", because, when implementing Rails interpretation of MVC, there is no view, only templates while people call "views". In ASP.NET MVC the ViewModel actually a full implemented View from Model2 MVC pattern (active view which requests data from model layer and manipulates multiple templates based on that dataWhat you are saying makes perfect sense (the VM shouldn't contain logic), however I'm struggling to see how it would work in practice - for example what unit-testa
 ble piece of logic is executed when the user clicks on a button? How about when the user modifies a text box which is two-way databound to a property on the ViewModel?  I see my wording of that sentence is a little ambiguous. I actually mean unit-testing for all components is more easily supported, not specifically just improving testing of ViewModels (which as you point out don't actually do that much in MVCVM... which is what you want). The real benefit of controllers is that you are actually removing most of the requirements for testing from the ViewModel (where people keeps shoving controller logic) and putting it where it can be tested (mainly Controllers and Models). The reuse comment is specific to the VMs in that sentence. I have edited it.    don't understand what's the difference between MVVM and MVC with Controller Service pattern MVVM does not normally encourage separation of controllers (which I am encouraging). MVC also uses ViewModels, as well as models, so should it 
 not also be called MVCVM and both follow the same patternPlease elaborate on the role of ViewModel in two-way data binding. The Controller gets and puts ViewModels from and to the View. What type of Entity (Controller?) mediates getting and putting between the ViewModel and (one or more) Models? Two-way binding, in MVVM, is purely a way of mirroring values in both the View and View-Model allowing the changes to reflect elsewhere in the View(s). Binding direct to actual data sources in a GUI app can be quite a fragile connection (e.g. not resistant to comms failures), so better to persist data under the specific control of a Controller, e.g. in response to a Save option/command. Controllers can instantiate data connection objects as and when needed (like EF does). I am assuming you will persist your data with WCF RIA services?