beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlin Rogers <carlin.rog...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question about BEEHIVE-1024
Date Tue, 10 Jan 2006 05:02:54 GMT
I haven't checked the setting or value of _moduleConfig. I've just been
comparing the old code path to the new changes while running this convoluted
scenario. I noticed that in the old code, that if _moduleConfig was null in
initModuleConfig(), it would see if it was already an attribute of the
context. Then, if not, AutoRegisterActionServlet.ensureModuleRegistered()
was called.

In turn, it called...
AutoRegisterActionServlet.registerModule(), which called...
AutoRegisterActionServlet.initModuleConfig().

This initModuleConfig() does a servletContext.setAttribute() with the new
module config, as does the AutoRegisterActionServlet.ensureModuleRegistered()
after registerModule() returns. The ModuleConfig object is returned from
ensureModuleRegistered() and assigned to _moduleConfig.

I've just noticed that in this scenario, when I'm in processMapping() that a
call to InternalUtils.getModuleConfig() for the GlobalApp module config will
now return null.

Does that make sense? Sorry if this isn't so clear.

Thanks,
Carlin

On 1/9/06, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Carlin,
>
> Just want to make sure I'm understanding here.  Are you saying that the
> original call to initModuleConfig() (the one I removed) also registered
> the module in the ServletContext, as a side effect?  It was only
> supposed to set the reference to _moduleConfig, which is now always
> taken care of in getModuleConfig().  Is the problem happening because
> the module isn't registered in the ServletContext, or because
> _moduleConfig is somehow null?
>
> Rich
>
> Carlin Rogers wrote:
>
> >Hey Rich,
> >
> >Thanks for the reply and the information on the
> >InternalUtils.avoidDirectResponseOutput() function.
> >
> >I looked at the issue some more and it turns out that for the scenario
> I'm
> >investigating, there's another revision that is also impacting the
> behavior.
> >In revision 351812, http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=351812&view=rev,
> >for BEEHIVE-1017, the FlowController.reinitialize() method was modified
> so
> >that in no longer calls initModuleConfig(), which ensured that the module
> >config was registered (attribute of the context).
> >
> >Now, when the initial page flow of the portal scenario is opened in a
> >portlet, the GlobalApp module config is not added to the servlet context
> >attributes. Then when the unhandled action is hit and we fall into
> >processMapping(), the call to InternalUtils.getModuleConfig() for the
> >GlobalApp module config will be null and we wouldn't even be able to
> check
> >for an action that was declared as "unknown".
> >
> >Unfortunately, I'm still trying to understand why the call to from
> >FlowController.reinitialize() to initModuleConfig() was removed.
> >
> >I've logged a JIRA issue on this and am trying to figure out what is the
> >best way to resolve the problem. See
> >http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEEHIVE-1037
> >The bug description might be a better illustration of the scenario I'm
> >trying to solve.
> >
> >Let me know if you have some more thoughts about how best to resolve
> this.
> >
> >Many thanks,
> >Carlin
> >
> >On 1/9/06, Rich Feit <richfeit@privatei.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hey Carlin,
> >>
> >>Sorry for the delay.  I agree that we should be checking for an
> >>"unknown" action mapping in the global app module, so if you're
> >>suggesting making that change, I agree.
> >>
> >>My answer to the rest is a little more involved:
> >>
> >>    - There's already a rough mechanism for avoiding direct response
> >>output.  In InternalUtils, there's avoidDirectResponseOutput().  If
> >>that's called on the request, then InternalUtils.sendError() will throw
> >>an exception instead of writing to the response.  This is what I think
> >>should be happening here -- we should be calling sendError().
> >>
> >>    - I think that two things should probably change here: 1)
> >>InternalUtils.avoidDirectResponseOutput() should be replaced with a flag
> >>in PageFlowRequestWrapper, and 2) strutsLookup() should just set this
> >>flag off the bat.  We shouldn't be writing to the response *ever* during
> >>strutsLookup().
> >>
> >>Let me know what you think (and if you have any questions about this).
> >>
> >>Rich
> >>
> >>Carlin Rogers wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Just wanted to note that the difference in the behavior is also related
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to a
> >>
> >>
> >>>struts merge  where the struts module config has an action defined with
> >>>
> >>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>
> >>>"unknown" attribute (making it like a default). I think the missing
> >>>condition is that we check to see if the GlobalApp has the action
> config
> >>>
> >>>
> >>but
> >>
> >>
> >>>we don't check any of the action configs on the global app to see if
> >>>
> >>>
> >>they're
> >>
> >>
> >>>"unknown".
> >>>
> >>>So, If the global app includes a Struts Merge and that struts module
> >>>
> >>>
> >>config
> >>
> >>
> >>>includes an unknown action, we'll never hit it.
> >>>
> >>>Carlin
> >>>
> >>>On 1/5/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hey Rich,
> >>>>
> >>>>Hope your work is going well!
> >>>>
> >>>>I have a question about svn revision 356056 (
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=356056&view=rev
> >>
> >>
> >>>>) checked in as a fix for BEEHIVE-1024. It seems that it changed the
> >>>>behavior of PageFlowRequestProcessor.processMapping() and how we
> handle
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>an
> >>
> >>
> >>>>unknown action. With this change, the code path for an unknown action
> in
> >>>>processMapping() fails the new check to see if it is in the globalApp
> >>>>(...globalApp.findActionConfig(path) != null). We drop to the else
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>statement
> >>
> >>
> >>>>and into a call to processUnresolvedAction() which uses the
> >>>>DefaultExceptionsHandler class and eventually writes out the HTML of
> our
> >>>>action not found error message directly to the response. I think this
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>looks
> >>
> >>
> >>>>OK. However, having the error message written to the response may not
> be
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>
> >>>>desired behavior for something like a portal using a call to
> >>>>PageFlowUtils.strutsLookup(). What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>>If we leave the fix as is, could we use the
> >>>>PageFlowRequestWrapper.isScopedLookup() condition to determine if this
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>is
> >>
> >>
> >>>>from strutsLookup() or not before calling processUnresolvedAction().
> I.E
> >>>
> >>>
> >>.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>do something different for an unknown action in a strutsLookup()? Just
> >>>>curious.
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks,
> >>>>Carlin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message