I have an AngularJS application where I have service
s that calls $http
resource and returns a promise
that I resolve in my controller. Here's a sample of what I'm doing:
app.service('Blog', function($http, $q) {
var deferred = $q.defer();
$http.get('http://blog.com/sampleblog')
.then(function(res) {
// data massaging stuffs
return deferred.resolve(res.data);
}, function(err) {
// may be some error message checking and beautifying error message
return deferred.reject(err);
});
// chain if further more HTTP calls
return deferred.promise;
});
But I could simply do the following as well:
app.service('Blog', function($http) {
return $http.get('http://blog.com/sampleblog');
});
And then do the validation, error beautifying, chaining promises, etc. at the controller
level.
My question is : Which is considered as 'best practice', if any, in terms of code resiliency and flexibility? Or is there a better way to do it completely different than this ?
As per the concept behind MVC, controller should decide what to do with the promise.
The service should initiate the promise.
app.service('Blog', function($http) {
return $http.get('http://blog.com/sampleblog');
});
And the controller should decide what to do when resolved.
$scope.response = Blog;
$scope.response.then(function(response) {
DataProcessor.processData(response.data)
})
.error(function(error){
ErrorHandler.handle(error);
})
The technical post webpages of this site follow the CC BY-SA 4.0 protocol. If you need to reprint, please indicate the site URL or the original address.Any question please contact:yoyou2525@163.com.