The javadoc for ResourceVisitOption.html says the following:
https://javaee.github.io/javaee-spec/javadocs/javax/faces/application/ResourceVisitOption.html

public static final ResourceVisitOption TOP_LEVEL_VIEWS_ONLY
Only visit resources that are top level views, i.e. views that can be used
to serve a request as opposed to those that can only be used for includes.

Thanks,

Paul Nicolucci




From:   Thomas Andraschko <[email protected]>
To:     MyFaces Development <[email protected]>
Date:   11/18/2017 07:22 AM
Subject:        Re: Dev Discussion - JSF 2.3
            ResourceVisitOption.TOP_LEVEL_VIEWS_ONLY different between
            MyFaces and Mojarra



Did you checked the spec texts?

2017-11-17 19:56 GMT+01:00 Paul Nicolucci <[email protected]>:
  Hello,

  I was testing out the ResourceHandler.getViewResources() today and I
  noticed that we have quite a behavior different between the two
  implementations.

  Take the following application for example:

  testApplication
  - /depth2/index.xhtml
  -META-INF/index.xhtml
  -WEB-INF/index.xhtml
  - index.xhtml
  - test

  Mojarra getViewResources( call with ResourceVisitOptions )
  /index.xhtml /depth2/index.xhtml

  Mojarra getViewResources ( call without ResourceVisitOptions )
  /index.xhtml /depth2/index.xhtml META-INF/index.xhtml WEB-INF/index.xhtml

  MyFaces getViewResources( call with ResourceVisitOptions )
  /index.xhtml /depth2/index.xhtml

  MyFaces getViewResources( call without ResourceVisitOptions )
  /index.xhtml /test /depth2/index.xhtml

  In MyFaces if we use the ResourceVisitOptions then we filter out any
  views that don't contain a valid suffix ( in the above case /test ). In
  addition MyFaces never returns any views in WEB-INF and META-INF

  In Mojarra if we use the ResourceVisitOptions then anything in WEB-INF
  and META-INF is not included. In addition Mojarra never returns any views
  without a valid suffix.

  I think we need a dev discussion to determine if we want to stick with
  our current behavior or change it.

  Thanks,

  Paul Nicolucci








Reply via email to