Thanks to all those who responded!
I have figured it out. The problem, as usual, was in my form bean. The
getQuestion(int index) accessor needed to *create* a new QuestionForm if
none existed for the given index. That was it. The succession of exceptions
that were throw were horrifyingly misleading...
Regards
--johnt
on 3/7/01 5:02 PM, John Tangney at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have been away from this list for a while, so please forgive me if this is
> a known problem. I was not able to find a reference...
>
> I am using a JSP with a form bean that has the following properties:
> Vector questions;
> String foo;
>
> There are the usual accessors:
> public QuestionBean getQuestion(int no);
> public String getFoo();
> ...
>
> Each element in the vector is a QuestionBean, and each QuestionBean has:
> Vector answers;
> String userText;
>
> and the usual accessors:
> public AnswerBean getAnswer(int no);
> public String getUserText();
>
> Each element in *this* vector is an AnswerBean, with only scalar properties
> and accessors.
>
> My jsp then uses constructs that result in this HTML:
> <input type="text" name="question[0].userText" value="Blue">
>
> The JSP is properly populated before it's displayed. (Note the value "Blue"
> above.) All the values are correctly pulled from the form bean and its
> nested beans. When I submit the form, the next action uses the same form
> bean class, and this is where things fall apart. The only request parameter
> that gets pulled into the form bean is foo. The indexed "question" is not
> recognized.
>
> I reuse the QuestioBean as a form in another place (It extends ActionForm)
> and the generated HTML does not use any indexed or nested references. It
> works perfectly.
>
> So what's happening? Is the indexed/nested stuff broken? Is the problem
> caused by the fact that question[0] yields another bean? (The docs say you
> can combine index/nested/simple references.) And why does the formBean -->
> JSP populating work, but request --> formBean not?
>
> Any and all hints gratefully accepted.
>
> --johnt
