Overload "component" method to accept object map of components

[ksvitkovsky]

What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
feature

What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
"component" method does not allow multiple components registration

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
"component" method accepts object as a parameter where the keys are component names and the values are the component definition objects

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
no

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

• The commit message follows our guidelines: https://github.com/angular/angular.js/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-message-format
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

[gkalpak]

I am not a big fan of this "feature" in other APIs (.directive(), .service(), .provider(), etc) either. It adds unnecessary complexity to the APIs for very little benefit (that could be achieved by an external helper).

It's 👎 from me.

[ksvitkovsky]

In my defense, it was requested in #14579 which has "pr's plz" label 😊

[frederikprijck]

I am not a big fan of this "feature" in other APIs (.directive(), .service(), .provider(), etc) either

Imho it should be atleast the same for both components and directives. I find it confusing that a directive offers this way to register but a component does not.

[Narretz]

I suggested that we would merge if a PR was provided, simply because it makes the API consistent with that of directive()

[gkalpak]

Just to be clear, I don't feel strongly about this. I just don't like it (which is my personal preference), but if others think it's fine I won't stand in your way 😁

[Narretz]

Ok. @ksvitkovsky once you provide the tests we can move this forward.

[ksvitkovsky]

@Narretz I added the tests in the first commit, should I add more cases?

[Narretz]

@ksvitkovsky Oh, someone tagged this as "needs test". Sorry. I will review and get back if anything else is needed.

[googlebot]

So there's good news and bad news.

👍 The good news is that everyone that needs to sign a CLA (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) have done so. Everything is all good there.

😕 The bad news is that it appears that one or more commits were authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that they're okay with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request.

Note to project maintainer: This is a terminal state, meaning the cla/google commit status will not change from this state. It's up to you to confirm consent of the commit author(s) and merge this pull request when appropriate.

[googlebot]

So there's good news and bad news.

👍 The good news is that everyone that needs to sign a CLA (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) have done so. Everything is all good there.

😕 The bad news is that it appears that one or more commits were authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that they're okay with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request.

Note to project maintainer: This is a terminal state, meaning the cla/google commit status will not change from this state. It's up to you to confirm consent of the commit author(s) and merge this pull request when appropriate.

[ksvitkovsky]

um, I'm okay if that does matter 😄

[Narretz]

@ksvitkovsky No worries, this message is only for maintainers - it happens when the commits in the PR are by more than 1 author. Since it's only you (who has signed the CLA) and me, we're good. ;)

[ksvitkovsky]

@Narretz cool, thanks 😊