This is an expansion of @Michael Tiller's excellent answer. His answer works for initializing variables from the view by injecting the $attrs object into the controller. The problem occurs if the same controller is called from $routeProvider when you navigate by routing. Then you get injector error Unknown provider : $attrsProvider because $attrs is only available for injection when the view is compiled. The solution is to pass the variable (foo) through $routeParams when initializing controller from route and by $attrs when initializing controller from view. Here's my solution.

从路线

$routeProvider.
        when('/mypage/:foo', {
            templateUrl: 'templates/mypage.html',
            controller: 'MyPageController',
            caseInsensitiveMatch: true,
            resolve: {
                $attrs: function () {
                    return {};
                }
            }
        });

它处理一个url，如'/mypage/bar'。正如你所看到的，foo是通过url param传递的，我们为$attrs提供了一个空白对象，因此注入器没有错误。

从视图

<div ng-controller="MyPageController" data-foo="bar">

</div>

现在是控制器

var app = angular.module('myapp', []);
app.controller('MyPageController',['$scope', '$attrs', '$routeParams'], function($scope, $attrs, $routeParams) {
   //now you can initialize foo. If $attrs contains foo, it's been initialized from view
   //else find it from $routeParams
   var foo = $attrs.foo? $attrs.foo : $routeParams.foo;
   console.log(foo); //prints 'bar'

});

视图不应该指定配置

In Angular, the template should never dictate configuration, which is inherently what people desire when they want to pass arguments to controllers from a template file. This becomes a slippery slope. If config settings are hard-coded in templates (such as by a directive or controller argument attribute), you can no longer re-use that template for anything but that single use. Soon you'll want to re-use that template, but with different config and now in order to do so you'll either be pre-processing the templates to inject variables before it gets passed to angular or using massive directives to spit out giant blocks of HTML so you re-use all of the controller HTML except for the wrapper div and it's arguments. For small projects it's no big deal. For something big (what angular excels at), it gets ugly quick.

替代方案:模块

This type of configuration is what modules were designed to handle. In many angular tutorials people have a single module for their entire application, but really the system is designed and fully supports many small modules each which wrap small pieces of the total application. Ideally, controllers, modules etc would be declared in separate files and stitched together in specific re-usable chunks. When your application is designed this way, you get a lot of re-use in addition to easy controller arguments.

The example below has 2 modules, re-using the same controller, but each with their own config settings. That config settings are passed in via dependency injection using module.value. This adheres to the angular way because we have the following: constructor dependency injection, reusable controller code, reusable controller templates (the controller div could easily be included with ng-include), easily unit-testable system without HTML, and lastly re-usable modules as the vehicle for stitching the pieces together.

这里有一个例子:

<!-- index.html -->
<div id="module1">
    <div ng-controller="MyCtrl">
        <div>{{foo}}</div>
    </div>
</div>
<div id="module2">
    <div ng-controller="MyCtrl">
        <div>{{foo}}</div>
    </div>
</div>
<script>
    // part of this template, or a JS file designed to be used with this template
    angular.element(document).ready(function() {
        angular.bootstrap(document.getElementById("module1"), ["module1"]);
        angular.bootstrap(document.getElementById("module2"), ["module2"]);
    });
</script>

<!-- scripts which will likely in be in their seperate files -->
<script>
    // MyCtrl.js
    var MyCtrl = function($scope, foo) {
    $scope.foo = foo;
    }

    MyCtrl.$inject = ["$scope", "foo"];

    // Module1.js
    var module1 = angular.module('module1', []);
    module1.value("foo", "fooValue1");
    module1.controller("MyCtrl", MyCtrl);

    // Module2.js file
    var module2 = angular.module('module2', []);
    module2.value("foo", "fooValue2");
    module2.controller("MyCtrl", MyCtrl);
</script>

查看它的实际运行情况:jsFiddle。

这里有一个解决方案(基于Marcin Wyszynski的建议)，当你想要传递一个值到你的控制器，但你没有显式地在你的html中声明控制器(ng-init似乎需要)-例如，如果你用ng-view渲染你的模板，并通过routeProvider为相应的路由声明每个控制器。

JS

messageboard.directive('currentuser', ['CurrentUser', function(CurrentUser) {
  return function(scope, element, attrs) {
    CurrentUser.name = attrs.name;
  };
}]);

html

<div ng-app="app">
  <div class="view-container">
    <div ng-view currentuser name="testusername" class="view-frame animate-view"></div>
  </div>
</div>

在这个解决方案中，CurrentUser是一个服务，它可以被注入到任何控制器中，此时.name属性可用。

两个笔记:

a problem I've encountered is that .name gets set after the controller loads, so as a workaround I have a short timeout before rendering username on the controller's scope. Is there a neat way of waiting until .name has been set on the service? this feels like a very easy way to get a current user into your Angular App with all the authentication kept outside Angular. You could have a before_filter to prevent non-logged in users getting to the html where your Angular app is bootstrapped in, and within that html you could just interpolate the logged in user's name and even their ID if you wanted to interact with the user's details via http requests from your Angular app. You could allow non-logged in users to use the Angular App with a default 'guest user'. Any advice on why this approach would be bad would be welcome - it feels too easy to be sensible!)

一种方法是有一个单独的服务，可以用作这些参数的“容器”，其中它们是公共数据成员。

注:

这个答案已经过时了。这只是一个关于如何实现预期结果的概念证明。然而，根据下面的一些评论，这可能不是最好的解决方案。我没有任何文档来支持或拒绝以下方法。请参考下面的一些评论，以进一步讨论这个主题。

最初的回答:

我回答了这个问题 是的，你完全可以使用ng-init和一个简单的init函数来做到这一点。

这是它在plunker的例子

超文本标记语言

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html ng-app="angularjs-starter">
  <head lang="en">
    <script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.0.3/angular.min.js"></script>
    <script src="app.js"></script>
  </head>  
  <body ng-controller="MainCtrl" ng-init="init('James Bond','007')">
    <h1>I am  {{name}} {{id}}</h1>
  </body>
</html>

JavaScript

var app = angular.module('angularjs-starter', []);

app.controller('MainCtrl', function($scope) {

  $scope.init = function(name, id)
  {
    //This function is sort of private constructor for controller
    $scope.id = id;
    $scope.name = name; 
    //Based on passed argument you can make a call to resource
    //and initialize more objects
    //$resource.getMeBond(007)
  };


});

这个问题很老了，但我挣扎了很长时间，试图找到一个适合我需要的答案，但并不容易找到。我相信我下面的解决方案比目前接受的解决方案要好得多，也许是因为angular在最初提出这个问题时增加了功能。

简单的回答，使用模块。Value方法允许您将数据传递给控制器构造函数。

看我的活塞

我创建了一个模型对象，然后将它与模块的控制器相关联，引用它的名称为'model'

HTML / JS

  <html>
  <head>
    <script>
      var model = {"id": 1, "name":"foo"};

      $(document).ready(function(){
        var module = angular.module('myApp', []);
        module.value('model', model);
        module.controller('MyController', ['model', MyController]);
        angular.bootstrap(document, ['myApp']);
      });

      function confirmModelEdited() {
        alert("model name: " + model.name + "\nmodel id: " + model.id);
      }
    </script>

  </head>
  <body >
      <div ng-controller="MyController as controller">
        id: {{controller.model.id}} <br>
        name: <input ng-model="controller.model.name"/>{{controller.model.name}}
        <br><button ng-click="controller.incrementId()">increment ID</button>
        <br><button onclick="confirmModelEdited()">confirm model was edited</button>
    </div>
  </body>

</html>

然后，我的控制器中的构造函数接受一个具有相同标识符“model”的参数，然后它可以访问这个标识符。

控制器

function MyController (model) {
  this.model = model;
}

MyController.prototype.incrementId = function() {
  this.model.id = this.model.id + 1;
}

注:

我使用手动初始化bootstrapping，这允许我在将模型发送给angular之前初始化它。这对于现有的代码来说效果更好，因为你可以等待相关数据的设置，只在你想要的时候按需编译应用程序的angular子集。

在plunker中，我添加了一个按钮来提醒最初在javascript中定义并传递给angular的模型对象的值，只是为了确认angular真正引用了模型对象，而不是复制它并使用副本。

在这一行:

module.controller('MyController', ['model', MyController]);

我将MyController对象传递到模块中。控制器函数，而不是声明为内联函数。我认为这可以让我们更清楚地定义控制器对象，但Angular文档倾向于内联，所以我认为有必要澄清一下。

我使用“controller as”语法并将值分配给MyController的“this”属性，而不是使用“$scope”变量。我相信使用$scope也能很好地工作，控制器赋值看起来是这样的:

module.controller('MyController', ['$scope', 'model', MyController]);

控制器构造函数会有这样的签名:

function MyController ($scope, model) {

如果出于任何原因，您还可以将此模型作为第二个模块的值附加，然后将其作为依赖项附加到您的主模块。

我相信他的解决办法比目前公认的好得多，因为

传递给控制器的模型实际上是一个javascript对象，而不是要计算的字符串。它是对对象的真实引用，对它的更改会影响对该模型对象的其他引用。 Angular说，接受的答案使用ng-init是一种误用，而这个解决方案不会这样做。

The way Angular seems to work in most all other examples I've seen has the controller defining the data of the model, which never made sense to me, there is no separation between the model and the controller, that doesn't really seem like MVC to me. This solution allows you to really have a completely separate model object which you pass into the controller. Also of note, if you use the ng-include directive you can put all your angular html in a separate file, fully separating your model view and controller into separate modular pieces.