In other words: Convention over configuration ;-) I just think it's important to pick sensible defaults and to be able to turn it off, for example using a context-param.
For example, I think the mapping *.xhtml should also be default, but a developer must be able to turn *.xhtml off, since it's a widely used extension also outside of JSF... Regards, Jan-Kees 2010/3/7 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> > Hi Bernd, > > For some users it may be so ;) :D > > Look Bernd, it's not that big thing. It's just a class and a text file. So > it is by no means a problem to ship this with MyFaces Core 2. Also Mojarra > does something similar too! > > To your question: Nope! I just add the FacesServlet and the standard > mappings /faces/*, *.jsf and maybe also *.faces, if there are no entries for > the FacesServlet in the web.xml. If a user wants something special, he do > will have to configure it in his web.xml. In this scenario my > StartupListener will just do nothing. > > > Regards, > Jakob > > 2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann <bernd.bohm...@googlemail.com> > >> Hello Jakob, >> >> do you really think adding an other dependency is a real problem? >> How do you configure prefix or suffix mapping? For each possible >> configuration option an own impl version? >> >> Regards >> >> Bernd >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi Bernd, >> > >> > If this module wouldn't be a part of myfaces core, the users still would >> > have to configure something to run their MyFaces-2 apps in a EE6 >> container >> > (e.g. they'd have to include myfaces commons), which is not the target. >> The >> > target is to get rid of any unnecessary configuration to make the >> > development process easier! >> > >> > Regards, >> > Jakob >> > >> > 2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann <bernd.bohm...@googlemail.com> >> >> >> >> Hello Jakob, >> >> >> >> I'm not really sure that this feature should be part of myfaces-core. >> >> Maybe myfaces-commons would be a better place. But we can change this >> >> later. >> >> >> >> +1 on commiting the module. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Bernd >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Jan-Kees, >> >> > >> >> > Great :) >> >> > >> >> > I am currently testing on Tomcat, Jetty, GlassFish v3 and JBoss 6! >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > Jakob >> >> > >> >> > 2010/3/6 Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hey, >> >> >> >> >> >> If it works on Jetty and Tomcat, I'd say +1 on committing the >> module. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can't think of big issues with committing it as a separate module. >> >> >> And >> >> >> we can always revert if we have to. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cool, can't wait to check it out! On what appserver are you testing >> >> >> this >> >> >> stuff Jakob? >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Jan-Kees >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2010/3/6 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Hi guys, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I managed to introduce the core submodule "implee6" on my local >> >> >>> machine. >> >> >>> This new submodule includes Java EE 6 dependencies and thus you can >> >> >>> use >> >> >>> Servlet API 3.0 and other new things in it. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> When building MyFaces, this new submodule is built before the >> normal >> >> >>> impl >> >> >>> submodule. Then the .class and the .java files are "injected" into >> the >> >> >>> impl-build. This is very similar to how shared_impl is included in >> the >> >> >>> myfaces-impl build at the moment, but without recompilation. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> In this way we are able to use the new services approach of Java EE >> 6 >> >> >>> to >> >> >>> get rid of the Faces Servlet entries in web.xml, because in any >> Java >> >> >>> EE 6 >> >> >>> container we can configure this dynamically at startup (see >> >> >>> MYFACES-2579 for >> >> >>> details). This also works fantastically on my local machine - it's >> >> >>> really >> >> >>> cool! >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Also with this method we are still Java EE 5 complaint, because the >> EE >> >> >>> 6 >> >> >>> classes just won't get loaded in a non EE 6 environment, because >> there >> >> >>> are >> >> >>> no dependencies from impl or shared to them. They are only called >> (and >> >> >>> loaded) by a Java EE 6 container via the services definition. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Furthermore I noticed that the Mojarra guys also include a similar >> >> >>> solution to this in their newest build! >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Now, before I commit something of this, I wanted to ask if there >> are >> >> >>> any >> >> >>> objections with this proposal. If so, please tell me your concerns! >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Regards, >> >> >>> Jakob >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >
