Joern Nettingsmeier schrieb:
> Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>> Jürgen Ragaller schrieb:
>>> Am 24.04.2007 um 16:11 schrieb Joern Nettingsmeier:
>>>
>>>> Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>>>>> Jürgen Ragaller schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed the following behaviour:
>>>>>> When the workflow page is used in a speedy manner (quickly publishing
>>>>>> one page after another), the following error occurs:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No transition found for event [checkExecutionConditions] in state
>>>>>> [postChecked]!
>>>>> Hmm, maybe it issues GET requests where POST requests are required ...
>>>> i think i've seen that error before. iirc it was due to clicking a
>>>> button when i thought the page had already refreshed when in fact it
>>>> hadn't. so i was trying to do the same thing twice, which explains the
>>>> error message. jürgen, might this be what's biting you?
>>> I think that is it. If the same page is processed at a normal speed
>>> everything is fine - but I was batch publishing (clicking on the next
>>> publish link before lenya was done with the previous one; I know... not
>>> so nice user behaviour ;-)).
>>
>> I replaced the links with POST forms, which is the only reasonable
>> approach. Would you mind reporting if the situation improves? TIA!
> 
> why do you think this should improve the situation?

The browser doesn't allow to send a POST form twice, at least by
default. But I forgot that we have a separate form for each button.
Maybe we could use a single form and some JavaScript to set the
parameter values before submitting.

> we have a stateful session, the user sends the same request twice, bang.
> what can we do about it short of ignoring duplicate requests? (which
> would be a bad idea imho as it can easily mask real bugs...)

We could try not to use a continuation, but start a new usecase for
each click. BTW, I opened a bug:

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42328

-- Andreas


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to