[binofbread]

I'm running into a similar issue and fairly new to angular. In fact, the tutorial I followed even set up the server calls to use the _id field when looking at a specific model (ie leagues/{{ league._id }} ). What's the proper way to go about fixing this?

[psgibbs]

You can always create functions that refer to the private element:

MyObject.prototype.id = function(){return this._id;};

Which gives you: leagues/{{ league.id() }}

[camus2]

so what the point of introducing a "private" access modifier that doesnt exist in javascript since one can still access privates? looks like pure politics within google.

A breaking change like that shoved at the latest minute? you bet it is.

[btford]

> shoved at the latest minute

The pull request was opened 3 weeks ago with plenty of discussion.

[thatthatis]

3 weeks of discussion for a breaking change is "last minute" in my book

[camus2]

why didnt you think about having this feature optional? class based controllers are optional yet,because of them you introduce a feature that affect function based controllers ?

[btford]

> why didnt you think about having this feature optional?

Opt-in security features aren't very useful.

> class based controllers are optional yet,because of them you introduce a feature that affect function based controllers ?

That's how competing constraints work out sometimes.

We're always looking to improve though. The code is open source, so feel free to submit a PR or fork it if you disagree. :)

[1qaz2wsx3edc]

Don't use 1.2.0 until it's reverted or write a getter.