Ted,

I did see that check in the processActionForm method, but if you notice, in
the processPopulate which is called right after the processActionForm call
you'll see that the bean, no matter where it came from, gets reset and then
populated with the request parameters via the RequestUtil.populate method.

Am I missing something here?  Sure seems like it'll reset the form bean no
matter what which to me, isn't desirable.

-Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Husted" <archive@jab.org>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: Forwarding Actions onto other Actions


> There is actually just such a check, though this would be a very good
> suggestion if there weren't ;-)
>
> See processActionForm in ActionServlet.
>
> Please let us know if you see anything else.
>
> -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
> -- Custom Software ~ Technical Services.
> -- Tel +1 716 737-3463
> -- http://www.husted.com/about/struts/
>
>
> Bob Rullo wrote:
> >
> > This is my first posting to the dev board so bare with me.
> >
> > >From what I've seen in looking in the ActionServlet code it appears
that
> > everytime a action is called the form instance for that action is placed
> > into the mapping.getScope( ).  Shouldn't there be a check before to see
if
> > the ActionForm is already in the scope?  Reason being that one action
could
> > make some modifications to a form instance and then forward it to
another
> > action that will make more changes to the form instance.  Basically my
> > problem is that if two actions having the same form instance are called
in
> > the same request the form instance stored in the request will always be
> > overridden by the last action.
> >
> > I propose that we should do a check before each action to determine if
the
> > form already exists in the desired scope.  If so, use the scoped
instance,
> > if not, build the form instance off of the request parameters as it is
now.
> >
> > If this was by design, could someone shed some light to why?
> >
> > Thank you for your help,
> > -Bob

Reply via email to