Is there any difference in this scope statement mentioned in the angular documentation:
myApp.controller('DoubleController', ['$scope', function($scope) {
$scope.double = function(value) { return value * 2; };
}]);
for this scope?
myApp.controller('DoubleController', function($scope) {
$scope.double = function(value) { return value * 2; };
});
Apparently, both work equally well
Yes, there are differences.
The second uses the default nickname of the service $scope , which is the same name.
The first creates an injection of the $scope service, and uses the nickname '$ scope' to reference this service.
This implementation allows more flexibility - imagine a generic controller, which you can invoke by passing different services as a reference:
myApp.controller('DoubleController', ['servicoTipo1', function(servico) {
servico.funcao();
}]);
myApp.controller('DoubleController', ['servicoTipo2', function(servico) {
servico.funcao();
}]);
The implementation of the controller is the same, and the call to the function funcao() also - but the services are different.
This model is widely used when you want to deploy reusable controllers :
myApp.controller('controleBase', function(servico) {
servico.funcao();
});
myApp.controller(
'controleDerivado1', [
'$scope',
'$controller',
'servico1',
function ($scope, $controller, servico) {
$controller('controleBase', { $scope: $scope });
//Invoca uma nova cópia de controleBase,
//utilizando servico como referencia de servico1;
}\);