Discussions
Categories
- 197.1K All Categories
- 2.5K Data
- 546 Big Data Appliance
- 1.9K Data Science
- 450.7K Databases
- 221.9K General Database Discussions
- 3.8K Java and JavaScript in the Database
- 31 Multilingual Engine
- 552 MySQL Community Space
- 479 NoSQL Database
- 7.9K Oracle Database Express Edition (XE)
- 3.1K ORDS, SODA & JSON in the Database
- 555 SQLcl
- 4K SQL Developer Data Modeler
- 187.2K SQL & PL/SQL
- 21.3K SQL Developer
- 296.3K Development
- 17 Developer Projects
- 139 Programming Languages
- 293K Development Tools
- 110 DevOps
- 3.1K QA/Testing
- 646.1K Java
- 28 Java Learning Subscription
- 37K Database Connectivity
- 158 Java Community Process
- 105 Java 25
- 22.1K Java APIs
- 138.2K Java Development Tools
- 165.3K Java EE (Java Enterprise Edition)
- 19 Java Essentials
- 162 Java 8 Questions
- 86K Java Programming
- 81 Java Puzzle Ball
- 65.1K New To Java
- 1.7K Training / Learning / Certification
- 13.8K Java HotSpot Virtual Machine
- 94.3K Java SE
- 13.8K Java Security
- 205 Java User Groups
- 24 JavaScript - Nashorn
- Programs
- 468 LiveLabs
- 39 Workshops
- 10.2K Software
- 6.7K Berkeley DB Family
- 3.5K JHeadstart
- 5.7K Other Languages
- 2.3K Chinese
- 175 Deutsche Oracle Community
- 1.1K Español
- 1.9K Japanese
- 233 Portuguese
issue: adf faces components duplicated in displaafter partial trigger event

191100
Member Posts: 17
Hello,
I am baffled by what I observe in the JSF page I am developing, and would appreciate your insight.
I am new to Jdeveloper, but I worked with adf faces before.
I have a form to create a new record, and it has two SelectOnceChoice components along with other InputText components.
The first selectOneChoice component has a valuechanged listener bound to a backing bean.
When a value change event is fired, the backing bean method dynamically populates second SelectOneChoice component, whose
partial trigger is set to the first selectOneChoice component.
This part works well.
The form has CREATE, COMMIT, ROLLBACK buttons, and new records do get successfully created.
The problem is that after the record is saved and when the page is refreshed, another component table below the form - whose iterator is different
from the input form component - gets displayed twice, and it won't go away from that point on.
The view page source shows that the duplicate tables have different ids.
And, I can navigate rows independent of each other.
I have not encountered such a behavior before.
If the partial trigger is not fired, this does not happen.
I would appreciate insight from anyone.
Thanks.
Edited by: paikyunki on Oct 15, 2008 4:23 PM
Edited by: paikyunki on Oct 15, 2008 4:26 PM
I am baffled by what I observe in the JSF page I am developing, and would appreciate your insight.
I am new to Jdeveloper, but I worked with adf faces before.
I have a form to create a new record, and it has two SelectOnceChoice components along with other InputText components.
The first selectOneChoice component has a valuechanged listener bound to a backing bean.
When a value change event is fired, the backing bean method dynamically populates second SelectOneChoice component, whose
partial trigger is set to the first selectOneChoice component.
This part works well.
The form has CREATE, COMMIT, ROLLBACK buttons, and new records do get successfully created.
The problem is that after the record is saved and when the page is refreshed, another component table below the form - whose iterator is different
from the input form component - gets displayed twice, and it won't go away from that point on.
The view page source shows that the duplicate tables have different ids.
And, I can navigate rows independent of each other.
I have not encountered such a behavior before.
If the partial trigger is not fired, this does not happen.
I would appreciate insight from anyone.
Thanks.
Edited by: paikyunki on Oct 15, 2008 4:23 PM
Edited by: paikyunki on Oct 15, 2008 4:26 PM
Tagged:
Answers
-
A colleague pointed out that my managed bean was session-scoped.
When modified to request scope, that behavior went away.
Thank you.
This discussion has been closed.