Menu
The angular. bind() Function in AngularJS is used to bind the current context to a function, but actually execute it at a later time. It can also be used in Partial Applications.
The one-way data binding is an approach where a value is taken from the data model and inserted into an HTML element. There is no way to update model from view. It is used in classical template systems. These systems bind data in only one direction.
To bind to an element's property, enclose it in square brackets, [] , which identifies the property as a target property. A target property is the DOM property to which you want to assign a value. In most cases, the target name is the name of a property, even when it appears to be the name of an attribute.
Two-way Binding Data binding in AngularJS is the synchronization between the model and the view. When data in the model changes, the view reflects the change, and when data in the view changes, the model is updated as well.
Consider some pros and cons of the second approach:
0 {{lastUpdated}} instead of {{timerData.lastUpdated}}, which could just as easily be {{timer.lastUpdated}}, which I might argue is more readable (but let's not argue... I'm giving this point a neutral rating so you decide for yourself)
+1 It may be convenient that the controller acts as a sort of API for the markup such that if somehow the structure of the data model changes you can (in theory) update the controller's API mappings without touching the html partial.
-1 However, theory isn't always practice and I usually find myself having to modify markup and controller logic when changes are called for, anyway. So the extra effort of writing the API negates it's advantage.
-1 Furthermore, this approach isn't very DRY.
-1 If you want to bind the data to ng-model your code become even less DRY as you have to re-package the $scope.scalar_values in the controller to make a new REST call.
-0.1 There's a tiny performance hit creating extra watcher(s). Also, if data properties are attached to the model that don't need to be watched in a particular controller they will create additional overhead for the deep watchers.
-1 What if multiple controllers need the same data models? That means that you have multiple API's to update with every model change.
$scope.timerData = Timer.data; is starting to sound mighty tempting right about now... Let's dive a little deeper into that last point... What kind of model changes were we talking about? A model on the back-end (server)? Or a model which is created and lives only in the front-end? In either case, what is essentially the data mapping API belongs in the front-end service layer, (an angular factory or service). (Note that your first example--my preference-- doesn't have such an API in the service layer, which is fine because it's simple enough it doesn't need it.)
In conclusion, everything does not have to be decoupled. And as far as decoupling the markup entirely from the data model, the drawbacks outweigh the advantages.
Controllers, in general shouldn't be littered with $scope = injectable.data.scalar's. Rather, they should be sprinkled with $scope = injectable.data's, promise.then(..)'s, and $scope.complexClickAction = function() {..}'s
As an alternative approach to achieve data-decoupling and thus view-encapsulation, the only place that it really makes sense to decouple the view from the model is with a directive. But even there, don't $watch scalar values in the controller or link functions. That won't save time or make the code any more maintainable nor readable. It won't even make testing easier since robust tests in angular usually test the resulting DOM anyway. Rather, in a directive demand your data API in object form, and favor using just the $watchers created by ng-bind.
Example http://plnkr.co/edit/MVeU1GKRTN4bqA3h9Yio
<body ng-app="ServiceNotification">
<div style="border-style:dotted" ng-controller="TimerCtrl1">
TimerCtrl1<br/>
Bad:<br/>
Last Updated: {{lastUpdated}}<br/>
Last Updated: {{calls}}<br/>
Good:<br/>
Last Updated: {{data.lastUpdated}}<br/>
Last Updated: {{data.calls}}<br/>
</div>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.0.5/angular.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var app = angular.module("ServiceNotification", []);
function TimerCtrl1($scope, Timer) {
$scope.data = Timer.data;
$scope.lastUpdated = Timer.data.lastUpdated;
$scope.calls = Timer.data.calls;
};
app.factory("Timer", function ($timeout) {
var data = { lastUpdated: new Date(), calls: 0 };
var updateTimer = function () {
data.lastUpdated = new Date();
data.calls += 1;
console.log("updateTimer: " + data.lastUpdated);
$timeout(updateTimer, 500);
};
updateTimer();
return {
data: data
};
});
</script>
</body>
UPDATE: I've finally come back to this question to add that I don't think that either approach is "wrong". Originally I had written that Josh David Miller's answer was incorrect, but in retrospect his points are completely valid, especially his point about separation of concerns.
Separation of concerns aside (but tangentially related), there's another reason for defensive copying that I failed to consider. This question mostly deals with reading data directly from a service. But what if a developer on your team decides that the controller needs to transform the data in some trivial way before the view displays it? (Whether controllers should transform data at all is another discussion.) If she doesn't make a copy of the object first she might unwittingly cause regressions in another view component which consumes the same data.
What this question really highlights are architectural shortcomings of the typical angular application (and really any JavaScript application): tight coupling of concerns, and object mutability. I have recently become enamored with architecting application with React and immutable data structures. Doing so solves the following two problems wonderfully:
Separation of concerns: A component consumes all of it's data via props and has little-to-no reliance on global singletons (such as Angular services), and knows nothing about what happened above it in the view hierarchy.
Mutability: All props are immutable which eliminates the risk of unwitting data mutation.
Angular 2.0 is now on track to borrow heavily from React to achieve the two points above.
From my perspective, $watch would be the best practice way.
You can actually simplify your example a bit:
function TimerCtrl1($scope, Timer) {
$scope.$watch( function () { return Timer.data; }, function (data) {
$scope.lastUpdated = data.lastUpdated;
$scope.calls = data.calls;
}, true);
}
That's all you need.
Since the properties are updated simultaneously, you only need one watch. Also, since they come from a single, rather small object, I changed it to just watch the Timer.data property. The last parameter passed to $watch tells it to check for deep equality rather than just ensuring that the reference is the same.
To provide a little context, the reason I would prefer this method to placing the service value directly on the scope is to ensure proper separation of concerns. Your view shouldn't need to know anything about your services in order to operate. The job of the controller is to glue everything together; its job is to get the data from your services and process them in whatever way necessary and then to provide your view with whatever specifics it needs. But I don't think its job is to just pass the service right along to the view. Otherwise, what's the controller even doing there? The AngularJS developers followed the same reasoning when they chose not to include any "logic" in the templates (e.g. if statements).
To be fair, there are probably multiple perspectives here and I look forward to other answers.
Late to the party, but for future Googlers - don't use the provided answer.
JavaScript has a mechanism of passing objects by reference, while it only passes a shallow copy for values "numbers, strings etc".
In above example, instead of binding attributes of a service, why don't we expose the service to the scope?
$scope.hello = HelloService;
This simple approach will make angular able to do two-way binding and all the magical things you need. Don't hack your controller with watchers or unneeded markup.
And if you are worried about your view accidentally overwriting your service attributes, use defineProperty to make it readable, enumerable, configurable, or define getters and setters. You can gain lots of control by making your service more solid.
Final tip: if you spend your time working on your controller more than your services then you are doing it wrong :(.
In that particular demo code you supplied I would recommend you do:
function TimerCtrl1($scope, Timer) {
$scope.timer = Timer;
}
///Inside view
{{ timer.time_updated }}
{{ timer.other_property }}
etc...
Edit:
As I mentioned above, you can control the behaviour of your service attributes using defineProperty
Example:
// Lets expose a property named "propertyWithSetter" on our service
// and hook a setter function that automatically saves new value to db !
Object.defineProperty(self, 'propertyWithSetter', {
get: function() { return self.data.variable; },
set: function(newValue) {
self.data.variable = newValue;
// let's update the database too to reflect changes in data-model !
self.updateDatabaseWithNewData(data);
},
enumerable: true,
configurable: true
});
Now in our controller if we do
$scope.hello = HelloService;
$scope.hello.propertyWithSetter = 'NEW VALUE';
our service will change the value of propertyWithSetter and also post the new value to database somehow!
Or we can take any approach we want.
Refer to the MDN documentation for defineProperty.
I think this question has a contextual component.
If you're simply pulling data from a service & radiating that information to it's view, I think binding directly to the service property is just fine. I don't want to write a lot of boilerplate code to simply map service properties to model properties to consume in my view.
Further, performance in angular is based on two things. The first is how many bindings are on a page. The second is how expensive getter functions are. Misko talks about this here
If you need to perform instance specific logic on the service data (as opposed to data massaging applied within the service itself), and the outcome of this impacts the data model exposed to the view, then I would say a $watcher is appropriate, as long as the function isn't terribly expensive. In the case of an expensive function, I would suggest caching the results in a local (to controller) variable, performing your complex operations outside of the $watcher function, and then binding your scope to the result of that.
As a caveat, you shouldn't be hanging any properties directly off your $scope. The $scope variable is NOT your model. It has references to your model.
In my mind, "best practice" for simply radiating information from service down to view:
function TimerCtrl1($scope, Timer) {
$scope.model = {timerData: Timer.data};
};
And then your view would contain {{model.timerData.lastupdated}}.
Building on the examples above I thought I'd throw in a way of transparently binding a controller variable to a service variable.
In the example below changes to the Controller $scope.count variable will automatically be reflected in the Service count variable.
In production we're actually using the this binding to update an id on a service which then asynchronously fetches data and updates its service vars. Further binding that means that controllers automagically get updated when the service updates itself.
The code below can be seen working at http://jsfiddle.net/xuUHS/163/
View:
<div ng-controller="ServiceCtrl">
<p> This is my countService variable : {{count}}</p>
<input type="number" ng-model="count">
<p> This is my updated after click variable : {{countS}}</p>
<button ng-click="clickC()" >Controller ++ </button>
<button ng-click="chkC()" >Check Controller Count</button>
</br>
<button ng-click="clickS()" >Service ++ </button>
<button ng-click="chkS()" >Check Service Count</button>
</div>
Service/Controller:
var app = angular.module('myApp', []);
app.service('testService', function(){
var count = 10;
function incrementCount() {
count++;
return count;
};
function getCount() { return count; }
return {
get count() { return count },
set count(val) {
count = val;
},
getCount: getCount,
incrementCount: incrementCount
}
});
function ServiceCtrl($scope, testService)
{
Object.defineProperty($scope, 'count', {
get: function() { return testService.count; },
set: function(val) { testService.count = val; },
});
$scope.clickC = function () {
$scope.count++;
};
$scope.chkC = function () {
alert($scope.count);
};
$scope.clickS = function () {
++testService.count;
};
$scope.chkS = function () {
alert(testService.count);
};
}
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With