New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow custom decorators that use lifecycle hooks in AoT - these are our version of hooks, but we can't use them #30497
Comments
It looks like the onChanges life cycle works, but ngOnInit doesn't. Using a production build running with AoT, in the console I can see Would be great to have this fixed.
Edit -
|
If it's hard for the compiler to statically analyse a custom decorator to determine what lifecycle methods are being patched, perhaps a basic solution like using comments which target the compiler will be a simple temporary solution. eg // @AoT [ 'ngOnInit', 'onDestroy' ]
export function RequiredInput<TValue>(defaultValue?: TValue) {
...
} |
Duplicate of #16023 |
I have some good news! In Ivy, lifecycle hooks are purely a runtime concern. They're read off the prototype of the component as soon as the first instance is created, which means that if a decorator adds hooks to the prototype then Ivy will notice them. |
@alxhub Should this be working in 8.0? I enabled Ivy and tried adding hooks with decorators using Should this code theoretically work? @Component()
export class MyComponent {}
MyComponent.prototype.ngOnInit = function () {
console.log("init fired")
} |
This is not true, lifecycle hooks are determined in
However, decorators* are also purely a runtime concern, as explained in #16023 (comment), decorators runs after static properties, can be reproduce easily in TypeScript playground. When The current decorator proposal has changed to compile-time semantics, but what implemented in TypeScript is still the obsolete stage-0 proposal. |
So it looks like this is blocked until Typescript updates the decorator implementation? Which doesn't look like it's in a release plan yet: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/Roadmap#future |
@ChristopherKiss I really don't know, the decisions are made by Angular team, I have no way to change their mind. |
Here is how it should work in Ivy: https://ng-run.com/edit/TIbZM8JylZuhdZCM5KdO Unfortunately this works only in JIT mode (but fails in AOT mode). The issue is that in AOT mode the |
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
@mhevery Will this be supported by AOT in the future? |
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed.) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed.) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed.) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed.) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix #30497
…strap Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed.) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497
…strap (#38119) Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed.) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix #30497 PR Close #38119
This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy. This action has been performed automatically by a bot. |
…strap (angular#35464) Currently we read lifecycle hooks eagerly during `ɵɵdefineComponent`. The result is that it is not possible to do any sort of meta-programing such as mixins or adding lifecycle hooks using custom decorators since any such code executes after `ɵɵdefineComponent` has extracted the lifecycle hooks from the prototype. Additionally the behavior is inconsistent between AOT and JIT mode. In JIT mode overriding lifecycle hooks is possible because the whole `ɵɵdefineComponent` is placed in getter which is executed lazily. This is because JIT mode must compile a template which can be specified as `templateURL` and those we are waiting for its resolution. - `+` `ɵɵdefineComponent` becomes smaller as it no longer needs to copy lifecycle hooks from prototype to `ComponentDef` - `-` `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` feature is now always included with the codebase as it is no longer tree shakable. Previously we have read lifecycle hooks from prototype in the `ɵɵdefineComponent` so that lifecycle hook access would be monomorphic. This decision was made before we had `T*` data structures. By not reading the lifecycle hooks we are moving the megamorhic read form `ɵɵdefineComponent` to instructions. However, the reads happen on `firstTemplatePass` only and are subsequently cached in the `T*` data structures. The result is that the overall performance should be same (or slightly better as the intermediate `ComponentDef` has been removed.) - [ ] Remove `ɵɵNgOnChangesFeature` from compiler. (It will no longer be a feature.) - [ ] Discuss the future of `Features` as they hinder meta-programing. Fix angular#30497 PR Close angular#35464
When writing a custom decorator, lifecycle methods you patch are removed in AoT because the compiler doesn't check that custom decorators are using them.
This results in an inability to create custom decorators with any meaningful component specific behaviour.
React uses hooks to help patch into setup/teardown of your functional components, decorators are Angulars form of hooks. It would be super useful to have this functionality in Angular.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: