So, it would be like this?

public class SynchTokenField extends HiddenField
{
    private String token;

    public SynchTokenField(String id)
    {
        super(id, new PropertyModel(new ValueMap(), "token"));
        setType(String.class);
        setRequired(true);
        regenerateToken();
        add(new AbstractValidator()
        {
            protected void onValidate(IValidatable validatable)
            {
                if (!token.equals(validatable.getValue()))
                {
                    error(validatable);
                }
                regenerateToken();
            }
        });
    }

    private void regenerateToken()
    {
        token = UUID.randomUUID().toString();
    }

    protected final void onComponentTag(final ComponentTag tag)
    {
        super.onComponentTag(tag);
        tag.put("value", token);
    }
}

Since wicket already syncs on the session, this should work, right?

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> shouldn't the token be cleared then somehow on the first request? (in the
>  validator)
>  now if the second time it still validates fine because the value that is
>  submitted doesnt change and the token in the field doesn't change.
>
>  But it is a nice simple idea to have
>
>  On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:40 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  wrote:
>
>
>
>  > Would something like this work?
>  >
>  > public class SynchTokenField extends HiddenField
>  > {
>  >    private String token;
>  >
>  >    public SynchTokenField(String id)
>  >    {
>  >        super(id, new PropertyModel(new ValueMap(), "token"));
>  >        setRequired(true);
>  >        add(new AbstractValidator()
>  >        {
>  >            protected void onValidate(IValidatable iValidatable)
>  >            {
>  >                String submittedToken = iValidatable.getValue().toString();
>  >                if (!submittedToken.equals(token))
>  >                {
>  >                    error(iValidatable);
>  >                }
>  >            }
>  >        });
>  >    }
>  >
>  >    protected final void onComponentTag(final ComponentTag tag)
>  >    {
>  >        super.onComponentTag(tag);
>  >        token = UUID.randomUUID().toString();
>  >        tag.put("value", token);
>  >    }
>  > }
>  >
>  > Here, all you'd have to do is add one of these puppies to your form
>  > and it'll automatically validate itself.
>  >
>  > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  > wrote:
>  > > do you have a good patch then?
>  > >
>  > >  And are you saying that all double submits are then not possible
>  > anymore?
>  > >
>  > >  Also when i submit then think hmm thats wrong back button change
>  > something
>  > >  and submit again?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:25 PM, laz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Does anyone else feel that this would be generically useful to have
>  > as a
>  > >  > part
>  > >  > of Wicket? Not only does it prevent double submits, but it also is a
>  > >  > simple
>  > >  > safeguard against cross-site request forgery (see
>  > >  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery for a
>  > summary).
>  > >  >
>  > >  > The one missing piece from your solution is synchronization. There is
>  > the
>  > >  > slightest possibility that the second submit of a double submit could
>  > >  > enter
>  > >  > onSubmit before the token is reset. I am not yet sure what would be
>  > the
>  > >  > best
>  > >  > object to synchronize on, possibly the session id?
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  > hillj2 wrote:
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Here's a solution that SEEMS to be working.  It incorporates our
>  > >  > solution
>  > >  > > to the double submit problem that we used on our JSP's.  It didn't
>  > >  > appear
>  > >  > > to be working for me at first, but seems to be now.  (It does use
>  > the
>  > >  > old
>  > >  > > servlet request/session objects, but this may change once all our
>  > old
>  > >  > code
>  > >  > > is upgraded to wicket.)
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > ...
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Like I said, for now this appears to be working.  I just extend all
>  > my
>  > >  > > forms from this class and implement onSubmitted() with the same
>  > code I
>  > >  > > previously put in onSubmit().  The key is putting matching unique
>  > >  > strings
>  > >  > > in session and in the page instance.  On submit, those string
>  > should
>  > >  > > match, at which point, the string in session is cleared and the
>  > form is
>  > >  > > processed as normal.  If another submit comes in, the string in
>  > session
>  > >  > > has been cleared so it doesn't match the string svaed in the page
>  > >  > > instance.  In the case where setResponsePage is not called,
>  > >  > onBeforeRender
>  > >  > > resets the token string, so submitting from the refreshed page
>  > won't
>  > >  > > register as an error.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Our JSP version of this involves putting the token string in
>  > session and
>  > >  > > also saving a copy to a hidden field on the JSP page.  Which I
>  > think is
>  > >  > > similar (although maybe a bit more complex) to what Martijn was
>  > >  > > suggesting.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Thanks for all you suggestions.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Joel
>  > >  > >
>  > >  >
>  > >  > --
>  > >  > View this message in context:
>  > >  > http://www.nabble.com/Double-submit-problem-tp15957979p16275106.html
>  > >  > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > >  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > >  > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >
>  >
>

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

Reply via email to