Develop Reference

Is it wrong to define controller in angular wrapped in a function?

I am looking at some code, and I see that it is written as shown below. It doesn't make sense to me. Is it wrong? Why is it written like that? Also, shouldn't the use strict; go at the very top, outside of the code?
(function() {
'use strict';
angular.module('itemList', [])
.component('itemList', {
templateUrl: 'item-list/item-list.component.html',
controller: ['Item', ItemController]
});
function ItemController(Item) {
//code
}
}());

The reason it is wrapped in an IIFE is to keep all declarations like "use strict", functions and variables local to the scope contained within and not set in global namespace
If "use strict" was set global it can affect other unrelated code that my not comply and thus would cause unexpected errors to be thrown
Is it wrong to define controller in...
No. It is a best practice

It is an "immediately-invoked function expression". The main advantage is to make sure you don't pollute the global namespace when declaring local variable.
var someLeakingVar;
function foo(){
//do something with someLeakingVar.
}
The problem with the construct above is that any script coming after will be able to reach/modify someLeakingVar.
If you wrap it within the IIFE. You are sure, only the code within the expression is able to reac/modify it
(function(){
var nonLeakingVar = 'foo';
//...
})()
//here nonLeakingVar is undefined
In the same way as the 'use strict' statement can be function scoped, you make sure only the code within the IIFE will run in strict mode.
You can find more details:
strict mode
IIFE

Nodejs: Wrapping entire script in a function call

I have been writing modules in nodejs as following :
module.exports = function (logger, db, external,constants) {
return {
//something
}
}
Recently someone in my team suggested that whole script should be wrapped in a function to avoid global confusion of variables i.e. like this :
(function () {
'use strict';
module.exports = function (logger, db, external,constants) {
return {
//something
}
}
}());
I understand that this practice is generally used at client side code. But during server side in nodejs is this required? I think that in nodejs there is really no global scope and only module.exports is the one which is accessible really irrespective of whatever we write in script file (ofcourse don't go wild over here).

No, IIFEs aren't required with Node.js.
They can be useful for any scripts that may be used in multiple environments (UMD).
But, each module/file executed by Node.js is given a "module scope," similar to the scope an IIFE provides, as described under "Globals":
In browsers, the top-level scope is the global scope. That means that in browsers if you're in the global scope var something will define a global variable. In Node this is different. The top-level scope is not the global scope; var something inside a Node module will be local to that module.
Though, there is still a global scope with Node.js. When a module creates a global, it will be accessible in other modules used by the same process.
foo = 'bar'; // lack of `var` defines a global
console.log(global.foo); // 'bar'

You're actually already doing this.
What he's suggesting is to wrap the entire script in a function like this:
function () {
}
That's all. Nothing special. Of course, in regular javascript a function definition just defines a function and the code inside the function doesn't run. So to automatically run the function you wrap it in an expression context and invoke it:
(function () {
})()
However, in node.js you don't need to do this. Instead you can simply call the function when you require the module. So in node.js, this does the exact same thing in terms of creating a private scope:
module.exports = function () {
}
So tell your friend you're already wrapping the entire script in a function.
This is perhaps the first case that I see the harm in naming things and design patterns. In this case your friend is thinking IIFE. But IIFE is nothing special. IIFE doesn't create a private scope. It's functions that create scope. IIFE is just a means for the function to call itself. Which is why I prefer calling it self-calling-function to avoid giving it a sense of magic which may cause some people to perceive it as something special.

How to include global variables in angularjs app?

I have a global variable declared outside of angular context:
var globalv = "Hello";
This variable does not change. I have a directive that wants to use it...
$scope.somevar = globalv + "_";
What is the simplest way to include the globalv in my angularjs app/context? When I attempt to reference it in the above manner, I get an error.

I would consider wrapping the value in an angular constant which will enable you to inject it only where its needed
var myApp = angular.module('myApplication',[]);
myApp.constant('myConstant', globalv);
Just ensure that the globalv variable is defined before your angular module is defined.
I like this better than using a rootscope/global variable since you can control who the consumers of the value are.
You can inject the constant like so:
mayApp.directive('myDirective',['myConstant',
function (myConstant) {
return {
..
};
}]);

Is there any reason why you couldn't include it in the angular context? If it absolutely needs to be global you can add it to the rootscope within the angular context.
/* declare rootscope variables when the angular app starts*/
angular.module('someApp').run(function ($rootScope) {
$rootscope.globalv = "Hello";
});
You can then reference that rootscope variable anywhere within your angular app.
This is pretty simple to me, but I personally hate using $rootScope unless I have to. You should really try and get away from global variables.

Angularjs -> how to initialise variables in angular-style

I am trying to re-write an application using angular.js, but I still do not see how it works (more or less).
For instance. In my previous code, I had a function that was executed once everything was loaded that initialised variables, accessed for everyone in a window.variable style.
Now I want the same here.
My idea was to build a factory to return an object with all the variables, and then make that everyone had access to this object (somehow).
The questions are:
1- Am I right? I should initialise variables through a factory?
2- And how can I "call" this factory-method at the beginning of the code? with the module.run function?
Cheers,

I'd probably put the variables in a service, and then inject that into a wrapping angular controller. Any other controllers that you would want to have access to these 'global' variables would be nested under the wrapping controller, thus inheriting the variables.
var app = angular.module("app", []);
app.service("globVars", function () {
var vars = {};
vars.someVar = "a";
vars.someOtherVar = "b";
return vars;
});
app.controller("WrappingCtrl", function ($scope, globVars) {
$scope.globVars = globVars;
});
app.controller("NestedCtrl", function ($scope) {
console.log($scope.globVars.someVar); // => "a"
});
<html ng-app="app">
<div id="wrapper" ng-controller="WrappingCtrl">
<div class="nested" ng-controller="NestedCtrl">
{{globVars.someVar}}
</div>
</div>
</html>

I think you should avoid using global variables as much as you could
But if you have to use them, you are right, you can initialize them in module.run and add the module in the app dependencies

If you want to access some variables, you must see to $rootScope, because you can access $rootScope everywhere.
Also you must use angular config and run functions.
I advice to you don't use global scope, because it affects on app speed, memory leaks etc.

What is meant by “leaking” into global scope?

A while ago, I offered-up a JavaScript design pattern (the Module Pattern - see below) that I got from a John Resig example as part of a solution to someone’s question and I received the following comment:
“…that pattern is a bit over
engineered and not that good. Still
leaking into global-scope. and your
not opening yourself to async loaders.
But it is better then just ad-hoc
coding !”
So…
If “leaking” into global scope means “your object gets appended to the browsers window (object)”…then everything already gets appended (globally):
This “leaks” into global scope:
window.jQuery
…just call: window.jQuery and it resolves as a function();
This “leaks” into global scope:
function HelloWorld() { alert(‘Howdy’); }
…just call: window.HelloWorld() and you will get ‘Howdy’.
This “leaks” into global scope:
var myVariable = 10;
…just call: window.myVariable and you will get 10
If the commenter is correct, then all the above “leak” into global-scope. So, personally, I don’t see a way NOT to “leak” into global-scope as even your form controls exists there (as well).
As such, here are my questions…
What is meant by “leaking” into
global-scope?
Why is that bad?
How do you avoid it?
When wanting to create persistent
custom-objects, why is the Module
Pattern (below) bad?
Design patterns let you encapsulate
complex logic, is encapsulation
suddenly bad simply because we’re
writing in JavaScript?
Or...is this commenter simply wrong?
Here is the Module Pattern I Mentioned Above:
<script type="text/javascript">
var myNamespace = (function($) {
var publicInstances = {};
// ***********************
// myObject
publicInstances.myObject = myObject;
function myObject() {
/// <summary>A pointer to this</summary>
var self = this;
this.someProperty = new String();
this.initialize = function() {
/// your code here
}
this.someMethod = function() {
/// your code here
}
self.initialize();
}
return publicInstances;
})(jQuery);
jQuery(document).ready(function() {
// Use would look like
var myInstance = new myNamespace.myObject();
});
</script>
UPDATED:
I’m satisfied with the answers below and want to thank everyone for taking the time to comment.
TO RECAP THE ANSWERS BELOW:
"Leaking" into global-scope occurs when something used in local-scope is unintentionally made available to the global-scope (e.g. the window object). This is bad because it opens the page to potential naming collisions which could result in variables resolving to unexpected values or types.
Intentionally making a variable global is not considered a "leak". However, properly namespacing the object is required to reduce potential for said naming collisions.
You cannot avoid globally-scoped variables, but you can reduce the above risks by using asynchronous-loaders and defining-modules made available in plug-ins like RequireJS or Curl.

"Leaking" into global scope is when something used in a local scope is unintentionally made available to the global scope. That means assigning to a variable not already defined in the current scope:
function myFunction() {
a=1;
}
myFunction();
alert(a);
//-> 1
It's bad because there could be naming collisions resulting in variables with different values/types than expected. It can also lead to a bug in older Internet Explorers when you forget to use the var keyword for a variable used in a for statement.
I wouldn't class intentionally making a variable global as "leaking", because it's more like you're "pouring" it into the global scope. However, this is still often considered bad practice by some (although I think that's a little melodramatic) because there are still potential naming collisions with current properties of the window object, or variables set by other scripts and libraries.

[[Short story]]
Don't make global variables ever and use an async module loader like requirejs or curl
[[Long story]]
That comment was poorly structured.
There is nothing wrong with the module system. I was complaining about using global variables at all. (I still think the full generic module pattern is bloated).
Whether you should avoid all global variables is a different question and I think a matter of style. You can either use an async loader to pass modules around or using window to pass modules around.
What is meant by “leaking” into global-scope?
What I meant was your creating global variables. Minimising the use of global variables is a pattern. In functional style programming it's possible to have zero global variables but this is a different pattern from using global modules.
Why is that bad?
Having any state globally can cause that state to be corrupted.
How do you avoid it?
You can't. You can minimize the amount of global variables though. To avoid having global state completely you can use asynchronous loaders. These define a few global variables for you that you can then use.
When wanting to create persistent custom-objects, why is the Module Pattern (below) bad?
There is nothing wrong with the module pattern. The problem is storing your module globally. The issue is having global namespaces.
Design patterns let you encapsulate complex logic, is encapsulation suddenly bad simply because we’re writing in JavaScript?
Now that I've cleared up the intent of the comment this question isn't really relevant
Or...is this commenter simply wrong?
The comment was poorly phrased at best. I objected to global namespaces rather than modules, but did not state this properly.
The alternative is using asynchronous loaders and defining modules. These can be narrowed down to two global variables. define and require.
require = function(moduleName, callback)
This will get a module and then return it to you.
define = function(obj)
this defines a module.
The concept here is that you multi file code as follows:
// main.js
require([
"foo.js",
"bar.js",
...,
], function(foo, bar, ...) {
// do stuff
});
//foo.js
(function() {
var namespace = modulePatternCode;
...
define(namespace):
})();
//bar.js
(function() {
var namespace = modulePatternCode;
...
define(namespace):
})();

Your module only "leaks" it's namespace holder so it's pretty acceptable.

Loader example using RequireJS:
Define a utilities module in utils.js:
define(function () {
return {
each: function (iterable, callback) {
// ...
},
map: function (iterable, mapper) {
// ...
}
};
});
Use the above module in another module, say math.js:
define([ "utils" ], function (utils) {
return {
sum: function (numbers) {
var sum = 0;
utils.each(numbers, function (n) {
sum += n;
});
return sum;
},
average: function (numbers) {
return this.sum(numbers) / numbers.length;
}
};
});
And you can use math.js in another file, say main.js:
console.log("About to add 1-3");
require([ "math" ], function (math) {
console.log(math.sum([ 1, 2, 3 ]));
});
You can still have namespaces, and still keep them warm and cozy inside modules:
namespace.js:
define([ "foo", "bar", "moo" ] function (foo, bar, moo) {
return {
foo: foo,
bar: bar,
moo: moo
};
});
Then the rest of the modules can use this namespace during definition:
define([ "namespace" ], function (namespace) {
namespace.foo(42);
});
Or at runtime, in some other module:
define(function () {
return {
initialize: function () {
require([ "namespace" ], function (namespace) {
namespace.foo(42);
});
}
};
});
In the usages above, nothing but define and require are global. Of course, these are just illustrative examples, as there are many different flavors of defining/using modules in RequireJS.