Top level route configs

[btford]

Right now in Angular 1, the top level controller must be named "AppController," or the config attached to AppController.$routeConfig will not be present.

It would be easy to adopt a convention where an ng-controller on the same element as ng-app determined the top-level config, but this would make it impossible to use with multiple top-level components.

Related to #46

[kamrenz]

@btford Would it be possible to not need to define an ng-controller by default. Instead whatever the application specified in the ng-app would be the controller. i.e. ng-app demo would automatically give us a DemoController that would be top level? The multiple components would always then live under that top level application controller.

[btford]

I've thought about that as well, but it seems a bit too magical.

[SanderElias]

I have not thought this trough completely, but how about adding a ngComponentRoot (alternative names: ngRouteRoot/ngRootContoller/ngRoot/fill in your favorite) directive? If not found, you can default to appController. It also enables multiple 'root' controllers if there is a need for it.

[grbush]

A colleague and I just spent most of the afternoon working out why my simple example code was broken. Tracked it back to trying to call the main controller DeliveryController instead of AppController. This is definitely a trap for new players!