[ http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-287?page=comments#action_38615 ] Craig McClanahan commented on SHALE-287: ----------------------------------------
OK, I can now see what I think is going on, and can reproduce your reload scenario using the shale-test-core.war example. Here's what I did: * Start with a fresh session * Navigate to the "Token Processor" * Type in a value on Page 1 and click "Submit" * Observe that Page 2 is now displayed * Press F5 to try a refresh * Get the warning about doing a POST again, click OK * Get an error message about "invalid resubmit of the same form". Note that page *1* is shown here, not page *2* ... because it was indeed a duplicate submit of page 1. My belief is that this is, in fact, the behavior we want to see ... the reload was indeed a resubmit of the content for page 1, and we want to not process it. The challenge is, what happens next? And that question is equally applicable if (from page 2) I had used the back arrow to go back to page 1, then clicked it's submit button again. It seems to me that the application needs to provide an "escape valve" of some sort, typically in the form of a cancel button with its immediate attribute set to true, that aborts the current workflow and gets the application back to a known state. I don't see an approach that will let the framework recover gracefully from this scenario within a current workflow -- the framework is not going to have any knowledge of what state information might have been mutated, or where to go next without resubmitting. Do you have any suggestions? At the moment, I'm leaning towards considering the current functionality as "works as designed." > Faulty behavior of the "token" component with Apache MyFaces >1.1.1 > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SHALE-287 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-287 > Project: Shale > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Core > Environment: OS: Microsoft Windows XP SP2 > Servlet Container: jakarta-tomcat-5.5.9 > Reporter: Mike Meessen > Assigned To: Craig McClanahan > Attachments: shale-test-core.war, ShaleIssueDemo.war, > ShaleIssueDemo.zip > > > This issue appears when using Apache MyFaces as of version 1.1.2. The MyFaces > project states the following about their 1.1.2 release: > [Quote] > This is the first official release of what we are now calling the "core." The > core refers to the JSF 1.1 implementation as specified by JSR-127. It has > passed Sun's TCK and is considered to be 100% compliant with the spec. > [/Quote] > So as a conclusion, I think everyone who's still using MyFaces 1.1.1 should > hurry upgrading his code to be 1.1.2 compliant. > Allthough Shale should be JSF-implementation-independant, it seems this issue > appears or not depending on the used MyFaces version. > Steps to reproduce the issue: > * Use a simple JSF submission form to which you add Shale's Token tag to > check for illegal form resubmissions. > * As long as you submit the form correctly, everyting works fine. > * Press F5 (page refresh) once, the browser warns about HTTP POST data > resubmission. > * Discard the warning and go on resending the same HTTP request. > * Shale recognizes the resubmission and acts correctly (no application logic > gets invoked). > **** This is the part where the behavior changes according to what MyFaces > version is used: > With MyFaces 1.1.1 > -------------------------- > * Resubmit the form correctly (using the submit button). > ==> The workflow goes on and the form is correctly submitted. > With MyFaces 1.1.2 and above > ----------------------------------------- > * Resubmit the form correctly (using the submit button). > ==> Nothing happens. No new token is generated, so no application logic gets > invoked and the workflow stucks. > I attached a sample project which demoes the issue. > -- EDIT: > I forgot to mention that with both MyFaces versions, I set the context-param > "org.apache.myfaces.ALLOW_JAVASCRIPT" to false. In theory, this shouldn't > make a difference since I'm using HTTP POST just as the javascript would do, > but I think it's worth the hint. > Regards, > Mike -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
