Hi Sander & Dave, I finally got the around to test your hints about "scope: true" and made a plunker - this concept of 'private scope' (I cannot find any documentation), will solve many of my issues, even though transclude still seem to link to the outer scope:
http://plnkr.co/edit/vls1XLXjDFdOqDrS8NLL?p=preview Thanks again, guys! Regards, Claus On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:39:48 AM UTC+1, Claus Fjellø-Jensen wrote: > > Hi Dave & Sander, > > Thanks for your responses, it really helped me to figure out what I need > to change in my code! > > I need the isolated scope, so I updated the plunker to reflect that: > > http://plnkr.co/edit/tC8LHvNKKKZAwrh8KwKs?p=preview > > When using transclude, the transcluded part (after version 1.0.8) no > longer refers to the isolated scope of your directive, but to the whatever > outer scope there is. > Well, corrected bug or feature? It means, that what is enclosed by your > isolated directive html tag, even if it includes no new scopes, is not > controlled by your directive. > > Another change I found, that I find somewhat counter intuitive, has to do > with the compile function within an isolated scope directive - it no longer > compiles to the isolated scope: > > http://plnkr.co/edit/BP2CRxI33LERYQf77jw5?p=preview > > I understand, that one can easily argue, that compile does not know the > directive scope, but you wouldn't get many point for usability and API > functional consistency. > > On a personal note concerning isolated scope, I would like to see that > multiple isolated scopes could be created from a common master scope (e.g. > using some scope: {} + 'parentScopeName' notation) and that these isolated > scopes encapsulated any (transcluded) sub-scopes. That is the natural way > to handle any master-detail data model where you are mostly concerned with > isolating the detail-siblings from each other. Explicitly naming the parent > scope would also allow a structure where you are not always constrained by > the placement of the controllers within the html. > > Regards, > Claus > > > On Saturday, February 15, 2014 8:01:54 AM UTC+1, Sander Elias wrote: >> >> Hi Claus, >> >> Actually you made use of a bug prior to 1.2.0 (see >> changelog<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fangular%2Fangular.js%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FCHANGELOG.md%23120-timely-delivery-2013-11-08&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGUsvVJnXAuWrl0-CjGx8IQwk-50w> >> ). >> An isolated scope was never meant to be visible to all it’s childs. If >> you need that, >> you need an private scope (scope : true) in stead on an isolate one. >> >> Regards >> Sander >> > -- 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.
