Hi,
here is a little bit on the same topic:
http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/dynamic-tables-and-orchestras-conversation-scope/
it also explains, why you want larger than request, but short than session.
Trinidad's processScope fixes that (so does the conversation scope
that is offered by Orchestra)
-M
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, you need to use a larger scope than request for your use case. What
> happen more specifically is the following:
>
> 1. Click the checkbox;
> 2. PPR launches and set the request managed bean's check property to true;
> 3. The inputTexts are rerendered;
> 4. The managed bean is destroyed as the request scope is released;
> 5. Click submit;
> 6. During Apply request values, the managed bean is recreated (since it's
> request scoped) with check property set to false;
> 7. Last name field looks like it's read only since the check property is set
> to false, so the submitted request parameter is ignored;
> 8. During update model, the check get its value updated to true from the
> checkbox's submitted value;
> 9. The last name is never updated as the submitted value was ignored during
> a preceding phase, even if it's now no longer read only.
>
>
> Hope it make it decently clear,
>
>
> ~ Simon
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Justin Mckay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I have a page where I have a check box if it is unchecked first name
>> appears as an inputtextfield if checked we ppr the page hiding the first
>> name and showing the last name as an inputtext field. Below is a submit
>> button. If I check the check box and enter a last name when I submit and
>> get to the action in the backing bean the Boolean value is correctly set to
>> true but the last name is still null. Here is the sample code:
>>
>>
>>
>> public class CheckTest {
>>
>> private boolean check;
>>
>> private String firstName;
>>
>> private String lastName;
>>
>>
>>
>> public String save()
>>
>> {
>>
>> System.out.println(firstName);
>>
>> System.out.println(lastName);
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> /**
>>
>> * @return the check
>>
>> */
>>
>> public Boolean getCheck() {
>>
>> return check;
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> /**
>>
>> * @param check the check to set
>>
>> */
>>
>> public void setCheck(Boolean check) {
>>
>> this.check = check;
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> /**
>>
>> * @return the firstName
>>
>> */
>>
>> public String getFirstName() {
>>
>> return firstName;
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> /**
>>
>> * @param firstName the firstName to set
>>
>> */
>>
>> public void setFirstName(String firstName) {
>>
>> this.firstName = firstName;
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> /**
>>
>> * @return the lastName
>>
>> */
>>
>> public String getLastName() {
>>
>> return lastName;
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> /**
>>
>> * @param lastName the lastName to set
>>
>> */
>>
>> public void setLastName(String lastName) {
>>
>> this.lastName = lastName;
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> jsf code:
>>
>>
>>
>> <tr:panelFormLayout partialTriggers="test">
>>
>> <tr:selectBooleanCheckbox id="test" label="Test Me"
>> value="#{checkTestBean.check}" autoSubmit="true"/>
>>
>> <tr:inputText label="First Name" value="#{checkTestBean.firstName}"
>> readOnly="#{checkTestBean.check}" />
>>
>> <tr:inputText label="Last Name" value="#{checkTestBean.lastName}"
>> readOnly="#{not checkTestBean.check}" />
>>
>> <tr:commandButton text="Submit" action="#{checkTestBean.save}"/>
>>
>> </tr:panelFormLayout>
>>
>>
>>
>> If I take the same code and put the Boolean value in the process scope it
>> works as expected. Do we have to use the process scope for a situation like
>> this or am I missing something?
>>
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
