[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/brows...=3Dcomments#ac=
tion_65564 ]
=20
Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-38:
-------------------------------------------

Have something else to question in the run() code above. That is, I think
that doing:

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0if session is not None:=20
 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0session.unlock(=
)

is questionable and probably shouldn't be done.

It should be done in the cleanup handler registered by the session object
itself when it is created if I remember things correctly.

Especially if we start caching session object in the req object, by unlocki=
ng
it, even if it was created by the PSP object, it makes the session object
unusable in code that may follow explicit use of PSP object in a handler,
or in a subsequent log handler.



> Passing req.form into psp.PSP().
> --------------------------------
>
>          Key: MODPYTHON-38
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-38
>      Project: mod_python
>         Type: Improvement
>     Versions: 3.1.4
>     Reporter: Graham Dumpleton
>     Priority: Minor

>
> When calling psp.PSP() explicitly to render PSP pages, it will internally=
setup
> req.form if it determines that the form is accessed by the PSP page.
> Problem is that if you are wanting to trigger psp.PSP() from a publisher =
function
> any form parameters have already been processed and req.form created. For=
a
> POST request this is problematic as in doing this it will have consumed a=
ll the
> content of the request.
> This means that when the form is processed a second time by psp.PSP(), it=
will
> find no request content. Thus, the PSP page will only be able to make use=
of
> GET form parameters and not POST form parameters.
> It would be an improvement if psp.PSP() allowed a instance of util.FieldS=
torage
> which has previously been created to be passed in through the "form" para=
meter
> of the constructor. Ie.,
>     template =3D psp. PSP(req,filename=3Dpath,vars=3Dsettings,
form=3Dreq.f=
orm)
>     template.run()

--=20
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secur...nistrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Having a conversation using comments within jira seems really weird.
Anyone else? Just me?

Especially when all I want to say is I agree. 

Graham Dumpleton (JIRA) wrote:
>      [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/brows...
n_65564 ]
>
> Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-38:
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Have something else to question in the run() code above. That is, I think
> that doing:
>
>            if session is not None:
>                     session.unlock()
>
> is questionable and probably shouldn't be done.
>
> It should be done in the cleanup handler registered by the session object
> itself when it is created if I remember things correctly.
>
> Especially if we start caching session object in the req object, by unlock
ing
> it, even if it was created by the PSP object, it makes the session object
> unusable in code that may follow explicit use of PSP object in a handler,
> or in a subsequent log handler.
>
>
>
> 
>
> 
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]