Ridu, what version of MyFaces and Tomahawk are you using?
DummyForms were once used to allow commandLinks and other components to
function despite not being within a form. Recent versions have
eliminated the DummyForm because it was incompatible with the RI way of
doing things [1]. All such components need to have a form around them
instead. Best practice, as mentioned in this thread, is for one form
enclosing all of the command and input components on the page.
Please make sure you test against a current version before filing new
JIRA issues. :)
[1] http://www.nabble.com/Errors-on-page-tf2316014.html#a6480039
Regards,
Jeff Bischoff
Kenneth L. Kurz & Associates, Inc.
Rudi Steiner wrote:
Hi Mike,
sorry for my fast reply. The problem isn't resolved. Also when I use
just one form-element in my page there is still a second form
generated by the framework with the following id
<form id="linkDummyForm" name="linkDummyForm" ...
This form contains the hidden field
<input type="hidden" name="jsf_state_64" id="jsf_state_64" value="H4sIAAA
for the second time.
Do you have any idea?
Rudi
On 4/4/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jorn,
I don't know if the id is required by the spec or not. Or if there's
some reason why it's required by the MyFaces implementation. If you
want to look into that and report back on your findings, maybe we can
consider changing it. I know that identical hidden fields must be
present for each form on the page, though.
On 4/3/07, Jörn Zaefferer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/3/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Definitely open JIRA issues (preferrably with patches) for all but
one
> > of these items.
> >
> >
> > > Error Line 101 column 165: ID "jsf_tree_64" already defined.
> >
> > The above will not be fixed -- this element must exist and be
> > submitted in every form.
>
> Is there any reason against simply removing the ID? As long as the
element
> has the correct name and is inside the form it should work without any
> issues. XHTML compliance to come! Though I prefer HTLM 4.01 strict...
>
>
