Do you mean, add a call to InternalUtils.ensureModuleConfig() from the FlowController.reinitialize() method during the create() process of the FlowController where the old initModuleConfig() call used to be? Or, were you thinking that it went in the processMapping to replace the call to getModuleConfig().
On 1/10/06, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I see -- thanks for clarifying. I *think* that we should just change to > using InternalUtils.ensureModuleConfig() at that point. It's meant to > be used in any code path where a desired module might still be > unregistered (and as so, getModuleConfig() is actually very rarely > used). I should have switched to ensureModuleConfig(), not > getModuleConfig(), in that checkin. Does that sound alright to you? > > Rich > > Carlin Rogers wrote: > > >I haven't checked the setting or value of _moduleConfig. I've just been > >comparing the old code path to the new changes while running this > convoluted > >scenario. I noticed that in the old code, that if _moduleConfig was null > in > >initModuleConfig(), it would see if it was already an attribute of the > >context. Then, if not, AutoRegisterActionServlet.ensureModuleRegistered() > >was called. > > > >In turn, it called... > >AutoRegisterActionServlet.registerModule(), which called... > >AutoRegisterActionServlet.initModuleConfig(). > > > >This initModuleConfig() does a servletContext.setAttribute() with the new > >module config, as does the > AutoRegisterActionServlet.ensureModuleRegistered() > >after registerModule() returns. The ModuleConfig object is returned from > >ensureModuleRegistered() and assigned to _moduleConfig. > > > >I've just noticed that in this scenario, when I'm in processMapping() > that a > >call to InternalUtils.getModuleConfig() for the GlobalApp module config > will > >now return null. > > > >Does that make sense? Sorry if this isn't so clear. > > > >Thanks, > >Carlin > > > >On 1/9/06, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Hey Carlin, > >> > >>Just want to make sure I'm understanding here. Are you saying that the > >>original call to initModuleConfig() (the one I removed) also registered > >>the module in the ServletContext, as a side effect? It was only > >>supposed to set the reference to _moduleConfig, which is now always > >>taken care of in getModuleConfig(). Is the problem happening because > >>the module isn't registered in the ServletContext, or because > >>_moduleConfig is somehow null? > >> > >>Rich > >> > >>Carlin Rogers wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Hey Rich, > >>> > >>>Thanks for the reply and the information on the > >>>InternalUtils.avoidDirectResponseOutput() function. > >>> > >>>I looked at the issue some more and it turns out that for the scenario > >>> > >>> > >>I'm > >> > >> > >>>investigating, there's another revision that is also impacting the > >>> > >>> > >>behavior. > >> > >> > >>>In revision 351812, > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=351812&view=rev, > >>>for BEEHIVE-1017, the FlowController.reinitialize() method was modified > >>> > >>> > >>so > >> > >> > >>>that in no longer calls initModuleConfig(), which ensured that the > module > >>>config was registered (attribute of the context). > >>> > >>>Now, when the initial page flow of the portal scenario is opened in a > >>>portlet, the GlobalApp module config is not added to the servlet > context > >>>attributes. Then when the unhandled action is hit and we fall into > >>>processMapping(), the call to InternalUtils.getModuleConfig() for the > >>>GlobalApp module config will be null and we wouldn't even be able to > >>> > >>> > >>check > >> > >> > >>>for an action that was declared as "unknown". > >>> > >>>Unfortunately, I'm still trying to understand why the call to from > >>>FlowController.reinitialize() to initModuleConfig() was removed. > >>> > >>>I've logged a JIRA issue on this and am trying to figure out what is > the > >>>best way to resolve the problem. See > >>>http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEEHIVE-1037 > >>>The bug description might be a better illustration of the scenario I'm > >>>trying to solve. > >>> > >>>Let me know if you have some more thoughts about how best to resolve > >>> > >>> > >>this. > >> > >> > >>>Many thanks, > >>>Carlin > >>> > >>>On 1/9/06, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Hey Carlin, > >>>> > >>>>Sorry for the delay. I agree that we should be checking for an > >>>>"unknown" action mapping in the global app module, so if you're > >>>>suggesting making that change, I agree. > >>>> > >>>>My answer to the rest is a little more involved: > >>>> > >>>> - There's already a rough mechanism for avoiding direct response > >>>>output. In InternalUtils, there's avoidDirectResponseOutput(). If > >>>>that's called on the request, then InternalUtils.sendError() will > throw > >>>>an exception instead of writing to the response. This is what I think > >>>>should be happening here -- we should be calling sendError(). > >>>> > >>>> - I think that two things should probably change here: 1) > >>>>InternalUtils.avoidDirectResponseOutput() should be replaced with a > flag > >>>>in PageFlowRequestWrapper, and 2) strutsLookup() should just set this > >>>>flag off the bat. We shouldn't be writing to the response *ever* > during > >>>>strutsLookup(). > >>>> > >>>>Let me know what you think (and if you have any questions about this). > >>>> > >>>>Rich > >>>> > >>>>Carlin Rogers wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Just wanted to note that the difference in the behavior is also > related > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>to a > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>struts merge where the struts module config has an action defined > with > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>the > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"unknown" attribute (making it like a default). I think the missing > >>>>>condition is that we check to see if the GlobalApp has the action > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>config > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>but > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>we don't check any of the action configs on the global app to see if > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>they're > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"unknown". > >>>>> > >>>>>So, If the global app includes a Struts Merge and that struts module > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>config > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>includes an unknown action, we'll never hit it. > >>>>> > >>>>>Carlin > >>>>> > >>>>>On 1/5/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Hey Rich, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Hope your work is going well! > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I have a question about svn revision 356056 ( > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=356056&view=rev > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>) checked in as a fix for BEEHIVE-1024. It seems that it changed the > >>>>>>behavior of PageFlowRequestProcessor.processMapping() and how we > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>handle > >> > >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>an > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>unknown action. With this change, the code path for an unknown > action > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>in > >> > >> > >>>>>>processMapping() fails the new check to see if it is in the > globalApp > >>>>>>(...globalApp.findActionConfig(path) != null). We drop to the else > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>statement > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>and into a call to processUnresolvedAction() which uses the > >>>>>>DefaultExceptionsHandler class and eventually writes out the HTML of > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>our > >> > >> > >>>>>>action not found error message directly to the response. I think > this > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>looks > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>OK. However, having the error message written to the response may > not > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>be > >> > >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>the > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>desired behavior for something like a portal using a call to > >>>>>>PageFlowUtils.strutsLookup(). What do you think? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>If we leave the fix as is, could we use the > >>>>>>PageFlowRequestWrapper.isScopedLookup() condition to determine if > this > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>is > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>from strutsLookup() or not before calling processUnresolvedAction(). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>I.E > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>do something different for an unknown action in a strutsLookup()? > Just > >>>>>>curious. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Thanks, > >>>>>>Carlin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > >
