[VOTE] how myfaces-commons-resourcehandler should work with suffix mapping enabled

[Leonardo Uribe]

Hi

To reference images inside a css file in JSF 2.0, users have to change
its code from this:

.someclass
{
...
    background-image:url('myimage.gif');
...
}

to this:

.someclass
{
...
    background-image:url(#{resource['mylib:myimage.gif']});
...
}

This means a lot of changes, including override css files and copy
images to other locations.

Some months ago, a new module was added in MyFaces commons, with the
objective of handle that problem in a gracefully way (just don't
change anything on the css file and make JSF load the images). But
there are different points of view about how to handle it on the
implementation of that module.

Things works well when prefix mapping is used for FacesServlet. But
with suffix mapping, by default all resources have an additional
suffix added on its request path. So, the resource url looks something
like this:

http://[server][port]/[webapp]/javax.faces.resource/mylib/image.gif.jsf

breaking the css file.

The intention is allow suffix mapping for jsf files, but prefix
mapping for resource links. There are the following alternatives:

1. Enforce prefix mapping for jsf applications using this module and
do not support suffix mapping at all.

2. Add a prefix mapping entry for FacesServlet and create a web config
init param to indicate that mapping will be used to handle resources.
If such param is no present, assume "/faces" as prefix mapping used.

3. Add a prefix mapping entry for FacesServlet and detect it
automatically, parsing web.xml file and in servlet 3.0 use
ServletRegistration. A web config init param anyway should be provided
for handle portlets case.

4. Use a special filter and detect if was setup automatically, looking
on application map if the filter was set or not and a web config init
param to know the mapping used, without parse xml files or servlet 3.0
specific code.

Please vote about which one you think is the best alternative, and
should be done in that module.

Please note: This vote is "majority approval" over the choice selected
(see [1]).

Thanks,
Leonardo Uribe

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes