hey Eric,
Yeah I tend to agree. Having a variable 'my-app' or whatever just seems to
encourage spreading it everywhere.
In your app.js, do you end up with a lot of sub-module deifnitions?
in your case:
angular.module('app', [ 'app.datamodel', 'app.pages.people', etc etc ]);
in a large scale app, wouldn't you begin to have many submodules?
On Friday, 23 May 2014 13:37:06 UTC-4, Eric Eslinger wrote:
>
> I prefer the non-variable way, because it discourages spreading your
> module across many files. There doesn't seem to be much use to it anyway if
> you enclose it in a self executing closure.
>
> So in one file I have angular.module('app').config ...blabla
> and in another file I have angular.module('app.datamodel')
> and in another I have angular.module('app.pages.people') and so on.
>
> The dependencies get passed around by the injector, as I understand it, so
> the 'whatever' service would only have the enjected dependencies if it was
> defined as .service('whatever', function(dep1, dep2) {...})
>
> e
>
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Michael Cranston <
> [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the response.
>>
>> So does either approach have an advantage over the other? Other than the
>> fact that a global app variable is now created.
>>
>> On Friday, 23 May 2014 13:06:06 UTC-4, Raul Vieira wrote:
>>
>>> In the first case you’re creating a global variable. However, you can
>>> address wrapping it in a seaf.
>>>
>>> The issue with the latter is changing ‘app’ to ‘my-app’ would have to be
>>> done through out the file.
>>>
>>> I tend to use the first approach.
>>>
>>> Raul
>>>
>>> On May 23, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Michael Cranston <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have seen:
>>>
>>> <pre>
>>> var app = angular.module('app', [ 'dependendcy1', 'dependendcy2'
>>> , 'dependendcy3', 'dependendcy4' ]);
>>> app.config(function() { ... });
>>> app.service('whatever' function() { ... });
>>> app.filter('whatever' function() { ... });
>>> etc
>>> </pre>
>>>
>>> I have seen:
>>>
>>> <pre>
>>> angular.module('app', [ 'dependendcy1', 'dependendcy2'
>>> , 'dependendcy3', 'dependendcy4' ])
>>> .config(function() { ... });
>>>
>>> angular.module('app').service('whatever' function() { ... });
>>> angular.module('app').filter('whatever' function() { ... });
>>> </pre>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are there advantages or disadvantages of either approach? In approach
>>> #1, does the "whatever" filter get all of those dependencies even though it
>>> doesn't need them? Or is this even an issue?
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> 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] <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/angular.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
--
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/d/optout.
