[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-584?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Felix Meschberger reassigned FELIX-584:
---------------------------------------
Assignee: Felix Meschberger
> org.apache.felix.webconsole.internal.compendium.AjaxConfigManagerAction.applyConfiguration():
> "create" action is not handled properly
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FELIX-584
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-584
> Project: Felix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Web Console
> Reporter: Dieter Wimberger
> Assignee: Felix Meschberger
> Attachments: AjaxConfigManagerAction.java.diff
>
>
> The current revision of the code (662145) creates the configuration, and
> returns true.
> else if ( request.getParameter( "create" ) != null )
> {
> // pid is a factory PID and we have to create a new configuration
> // we should actually also display that one !
> Configuration config = ca.createFactoryConfiguration( pid, null );
> // request.setAttribute(ATTR_REDIRECT_PARAMETERS, "pid=" +
> // config.getPid());
> return true;
> }
> The problem with this approach is the fact that in many cases the
> Configuration instance will not be persisted or available until the update()
> method is used to set new properties.
> Based on the fact that the "create" action may be called already with a
> complete set of properties edited in the form, I would suggest to only
> differentiate between factory "create" and "save" in the way the
> Configuration instance is created. i.e.:
> if ( request.getParameter( "create" ) != null )
> {
> // pid is a factory PID and we have to create a new configuration
> config = ca.createFactoryConfiguration( pid, null );
> } else {
> // pid is managed service, get configuration
> config = ca.getConfiguration( pid, null );
> }
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
