controller dependencies in angularjs

Question

I am new to angular and when I read tutorials I see two different methods of declaring dependencies in controllers:

1)

angular.module("myApp",[]).controller('MyController, function($scope, $localStorage){
});

And others have a little different way:

2)

angular.module("myApp",[]).controller('MyController, ['$scope', '$localStorage', function($scope,$localStorage){
}]);

The second way seems to be redundant to me since I have to specify $scope and $localStorage twice? What is the difference between these two ways of defining a controller?

Kevin F · Accepted Answer · 2015-06-24 23:00:06Z

5

The second way is minification friendly. When your code is minified

angular.module("myApp",[]).controller('MyController, function($scope, $localStorage){
});

will turn into something like

angular.module("myApp",[]).controller('MyController, function(a,b){
});

The second way keeps a reference to the object you are passing in. You can check the docs here, scroll down to "a note on minification"

answered Jun 24, 2015 at 23:00

Kevin F

2,8852 gold badges18 silver badges22 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

c4k Over a year ago

If you want to have more details on what Kevin is talking about, see docs.angularjs.org/guide/di (Dependency Annotation). You have an explanation on the three ways of declaring your components with the pros and cons ;)

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

controller dependencies in angularjs

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related