[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/brows...n_61281
 ]

Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-38:
-------------------------------------------

Alternatively, and probably preferably, psp.PSP() should look explicitly
for the presence of req.form as may have been left by a prior parsing
of the form parameters. This would be better than a "form" parameter
as it would be transparent.

> 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 f
unction
> 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 al
l 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.FieldSt
orage
> which has previously been created to be passed in through the "form" param
eter
> of the constructor. Ie.,
>     template = psp. PSP(req,filename=path,vars=settings,form
=req.form)
>     template.run()

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]