+1 for option 3, but I'm not sure how much time it takes to implement this option.
(If it's too much effort, option 2 looks okay to me) Regards, Jan-Kees 2011/7/4 Rudy De Busscher <rdebussc...@gmail.com> > I can agree with jacob that "Suffix mapping is bad for resource-requests " > but the choosen option shouldn't block developers from using suffix mapping > for pages. > > As far as I can understand the discussion -> +1 for option 2 (option 3 if > we want to have an advanced config version) > Regards > Rudy > On 3 July 2011 02:33, Bruno Aranda <brunoara...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 for 3 >> >> Between 2 and 4, I still prefer a filter. For me an init param to deal >> with such a specific case is more obscure than a filter, but it may be my >> intuition, >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bruno >> >> >> On 3 July 2011 00:20, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> i agree with martin and jakob. >>> >>> regards, >>> gerhard >>> >>> >>> http://www.irian.at >>> >>> Your JSF powerhouse - >>> JSF Consulting, Development and >>> Courses in English and German >>> >>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >>> >>> >>> >>> 2011/7/2 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> 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 <lu4...@gmail.com>: >>>> > Hi Martin >>>> > >>>> > 2011/7/1 Martin Marinschek <mmarinsc...@apache.org>: >>>> >> 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 <lu4...@gmail.com> 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 <lu4...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Rudy De Busscher > http://www.c4j.be > >
