Hi, I totally agree with Martin on the preferred options and the filter question.
IMO there should not be any filter. Furthermore I really don't understand why you want suffix mapping to work so badly, Leonardo. Suffix mapping is bad for resource-requests (maybe even an epic fail), because a css file is accessed via e.g. style.css.jsf. If the mime-type is stripped or ignored or whatever, the browser (note there are pretty bad browsers out there) might think this is a *.jsf file.. And there are some more reasons, that I can explain on request to everyone interested. Regards, Jakob 2011/7/1 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>: > Hi Martin > > 2011/7/1 Martin Marinschek <[email protected]>: >> Hi Leo, >> >> how is 4 better than 2? >> > > I was thinking on a scenario where some user want some other feature > in myfaces-commons-resourcehandler like gzip compression, i18n locale > appended to request path, library relocation of provide a custom > request path pointing to a Content Delivery Network or just a > directory inside the web application, and he/she is not interested in > solution to the issue presented before. > > In such case, suffix mapping alone should work. Note 2 requires a > prefixed mapping (note the assumption that /faces), but 4 does not > enforce that, so it will work on both prefix and suffix mapping, but > if you want a solution for the previous problem you just add the > filter and problem solved. A filter is a simple solution to implement, > and it will work without problem in any scenario. Note in this case > the filter will be used only when suffix mapping is used. > > best regards, > > Leonardo Uribe > >> 2 is my preferred option, 3 if someone has the time to invest in this. >> I don't see the additional value of 4. >> >> best regards, >> >> Martin >> >> On 6/30/11, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: >>> +1 for 3. >>> >>> Option 4. doesn't cause any conflict, so we can just keep that code as is. >>> >>> 2011/6/30 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>: >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.irian.at >> >> Your JSF powerhouse - >> JSF Consulting, Development and >> Courses in English and German >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> > -- Jakob Korherr blog: http://www.jakobk.com twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr work: http://www.irian.at
![http://[server][port]/[webapp]/javax.faces.resource/mylib/image.gif.jsf](http://[server][port]/[webapp]/javax.faces.resource/mylib/image.gif.jsf){kind=link}