Reputation: 105517
I'm reading the ng-book
on angular 2 revision 47 page 250 and there is the following passage:
When we put the class itself into the list of providers like this:
providers: [ MyService ]
That is telling Angular that we want to provide a singleton instance of MyService whenever MyService is injected. Because this pattern is so common, the class by itself is shorthand notation for the following, equivalent configuration:
providers: [ { provide: MyComponent, useClass: MyComponent } ]
Is it a typo and what is meant should be:
providers: [
{ provide: MyService, useClass: MyService }
]
Upvotes: 2
Views: 247
Reputation: 1
Yes, both of them are same. When you write providers: [MyService] angular will expand this into [{ provide: MyService, useClass: MyService}] where the first parameter provide: MyService will work as a Dependency injection token that will work as a key to locate "MyService" and the second parameter useClass: MyService it will create dependency from the existing service class MyService
Upvotes: 0
Reputation: 22892
It's typo, since you can't use components as Providers, here's the official docs
The Provider class and provide object literal We wrote the providers array like this:
providers: [Logger]
This is actually a shorthand expression for a provider registration using a provider object literal with two properties:
[{ provide: Logger, useClass: Logger }]
The first is the token that serves as the key for both locating a dependency value and registering the provider.
The second is a provider definition object, which we can think of as a recipe for creating the dependency value. There are many ways to create dependency values ... and many ways to write a recipe
Upvotes: 2
Reputation: 657731
Yes, it's the same.
When the type passed to provide
and useClass
is the same, then it's equivalent to just pass the type
.
Just a hint. Providing a component (MyComponent
) usually doesn't make sense.
Upvotes: 2