Interceptors don't "execute in reverse order", they're each a "wrapper" around the next interceptor's execution, and eventually, the action itself.
If the interceptor is firing twice there's been to requests, which could be a result of a redirect. Dave On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Biesbrock, Kevin <biesbrock.ke...@aoins.com > wrote: > I'm not really sure how to ask this question, so please bear with me. > > Requirement: > The system has several functions which a typical user can perform. The > user selects a function and the appropriate action is executed. If that > action implements myObjectAware, myObjectInterceptor retrieves myObject > (which is based on dates). This is all working correctly. > > The Problem: > An administrative user has the option to override these > function/date-based selectors by providing myObjectId as a parameter in > the url (e.g., ?myObjectId=1). While watching the logs, the > myObjectInterceptor is executed the first time with myObjectId=1. This > is where my understanding becomes a little cloudy. I believe after the > interceptor is executed initially (and the rest of the interceptor stack > is executed), the action is executed, and then the interceptors are > executed in reverse order. This is what appears to be happening and the > second time my interceptor is executed, myObjectid=null (i.e., > myObjectId is not a parameter on the request). > > I think I understand why this happens...because in the response (i.e., > the result), the myObjectId is not being carried over from the initial > request. > > Because myObjectId=null, myObjectInterceptor believes that it should > resort to the function/date-based selection of myObject; thereby > effectively ignoring the administrative user's request and selecting > myObject by function/date. > > Question: > How should I be handling the second execution of myObjectInterceptor? > 1. Is there a way to ignore the second execution of myObjectInterceptor? > 2. Should I create a public property on *all of my actions* to store > myObjectId? > 3. Some much simpler way I'm overlooking? > > Hopefully this is enough info to at least get a conversation started. > > I appreciate your time in reading this. > > Sincerely, > Beez >
