That's what I figured. I will have a look at orchestra for sure sounds like it might be the answer. We rely heavily on processScope in our application and I just feel like it kills the beauty of some of our pojo beans by having all this interaction with the process scope. As well as cleanup of the scope it's just a bit of unfortunate overhead.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 7:58 AM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: [Trinidad] PPR related question Hi, here is a little bit on the same topic: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/dynamic-tables-and-orches tras-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
