Hi
Number 2 and 3 were implemented and it is now on trunk. The idea was
create some classes to wrap existing servlet 3.0 methods and if it is
a 2.5 servlet container, parse the file and get the same information.
I tested it in tomcat 7 and jetty 7 and it works well. The next step
is remove the
Hi
Thanks to all community members who vote.
Here are the results
1. No votes
2. 5 votes (Martin Marinschek, Jakob Korherr, Gerhard Petracek, Rudy
de Busscher, Jan Kees Van Andel)
3. 7 votes (Leonardo Uribe, Martin Marinschek, Jakob Korherr, Gerhard
Petracek, Rudy de Busscher, Jan Kees Van
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
+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
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
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
+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.
Hi Leo,
how is 4 better than 2?
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
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
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
+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');
...
}
11 matches
Mail list logo
