Craig, did you find any better way to do this by creating an external
function or something?
I have tried to use this fork and works as expected and solves our problem
without $compile and $rootScope.$digest(), is this something required?
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 8:32:28 AM UTC+5:30, Craig Leyshan wrote:
>
> I forked initially as I was just playing with the idea and didnt really
> think it would end up as a pull request.
>
> As to making the interface to this a little more intuitive, I agree it
> could be improved. I was going for minimal change to angular, and also
> trying not to assume anything about how the new modules get loaded
> dynamically (requirejs, or something else). I think alternative methods of
> invoking this could be done by calling the new method I have added to
> injector. So almost treat the new method as a utility that can be used to
> build plugins or frameworks that provide a more integrated or seamless
> experience for the developer using a particular technology set (angular as
> far as i know cant load JS dynamically, it needs help from something like
> requirejs). The underlying functionality already existed on injector and
> that is why I put the new function there.
>
> On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 1:18:19 PM UTC+11, Robert Koritnik wrote:
>>
>> Why did you decide to fork Angular code and not rather create a pull
>> request on original repository?
>> Although I think it would be much nicer if we could call this instead:
>>
>> angular.module("SomeModule").requires(["Module1", "Module2",...]);
>>
>> It would make it more concise and easy to understand and use. It is part
>> of module functionality so it would make much more sense to add an
>> additional function to Module type.
>>
>> On Tuesday, 29 October 2013 04:37:38 UTC+1, Craig Leyshan wrote:
>>>
>>> Fork of angular.js created on GitHub for this change:
>>> https://github.com/cleyshan/angular.js/tree/module-loading-after-bootstrap
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:11:28 PM UTC+11, Craig Leyshan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Everyone. I would like to propose a change to AngularJS that would
>>>> make life easy for those people who wish to use something like requireJS
>>>> to
>>>> dynamically load angular modules after the angular application has been
>>>> bootstrapped. Just so people don't shoot this idea down as 'you dont need
>>>> to do that', I'll explain my use case.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine a portal-like application where the user has a space where they
>>>> can pull in tools, widgets, gadgets, portlets, doobiwhacckers (call them
>>>> what you will). Each of these "gadgets" is a simple angular module,
>>>> complete with template, controller, services, directives etc. Now imagine
>>>> there are 30-50 of these available but each user only want say 2-5 on the
>>>> screen at once. Using angular as it is today, I need to download the code
>>>> for all 50 gadgets........... and then bootstrap angular. The majority of
>>>> that code is not needed by the user so they are waiting longer than they
>>>> should
>>>>
>>>> Now you might say - cant each gadget be its own self-contained angular
>>>> app that is bootstrapped separately? It could. but there is lots of
>>>> shared code between these gadgets, and also shared state (ie services) and
>>>> I want changes in one gadget to automatically be reflected in other
>>>> gadgets
>>>> using angular binding. I also want the gadgets loosely coupled so that
>>>> they dont need to be explicitly aware of the other gadgets - dependency
>>>> injection in angular can take care of that for me so that each gadget has
>>>> access to the same state.
>>>>
>>>> So instead of lots of little angular apps, I need one angular app where
>>>> I will use requireJS (for example) to only download the code for the
>>>> gadgets that this user needs right now. I can do that, for initial page
>>>> load. But what about when the user wishes to add a gadget to the page
>>>> later? At this point, I am stuck with angular - i would have to reload
>>>> the
>>>> whole page to get that to work.
>>>>
>>>> Turns out there are only 3 lines of code needed to enable angular to
>>>> register new modules after it has been bootstrapped. Here it is:
>>>>
>>>> instanceInjector.loadNewModules = function (mods) {
>>>>> forEach(loadModules(mods), function(fn) { instanceInjector.invoke(fn
>>>>> || noop); });
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Put this code on about line 3005 in angularjs-1.2.0.rc2 (towards the
>>>> end of the createInjector function, before the return statement) and voila
>>>> - you have a new function you can call to notify angular that a new module
>>>> has been loaded and it needs to be registered into angular's runtime.
>>>>
>>>> This is what I do in my gadget app:
>>>>
>>>> - When a gadget is added, I first use requireJS to load the
>>>> javascript that the gadget requires. (you can use any script loader
>>>> here,
>>>> not just requireJS)
>>>> - When the module code is loading it will be parsed and executed by
>>>> the browser. The code does things like *angular.module('name of
>>>> module here', [])* and *angular.module('name of module
>>>> here').service('someService,.....)* to define the new module and
>>>> give it some controllers and services
>>>> - when all the script for the new module have finished loading, I
>>>> then call $injector.loadNewModules(['name of module here']). This
>>>> invokes
>>>> the new code above.
>>>> - Lastly, I do a $compile and $rootScope.$digest() to get the
>>>> gadget moving
>>>>
>>>> Why I think this should be added to angular:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The presence of this code does not change, alter, affect regular
>>>> angularjs users in any way
>>>> 2. The code is already in angular js - i'm just exposing it through
>>>> an accessible point
>>>> 3. It will enable other library writers to be able to extend
>>>> angularjs more easily and do cool stuff
>>>> 4. It allows angular to be more modular and scalable - using
>>>> bandwidth more intelligently
>>>> 5. I've seen many forum posts raised by ppl wanting to be able to
>>>> do this sort of thing. I've seen some workaround suggested that work
>>>> in
>>>> some cases, but may break when ppl upgrade angular down the track.
>>>>
>>>> Any one agree? Disagree?
>>>>
>>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"AngularJS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/angular.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
