Hi, I think .xml is too generic - there are many .xml files but only one sort of them are facelets views. I recommend use of .view.xml (login.view.xml for example) - that suffix was discussed on 314 mailing list. With reserved .jsp (or .jspx) was view declaration clearly identified, with simple .xml is not possible (for users and for IDEs). I use view.xml for months even with trinidad without any problems.
Regards, Martin Kočí Andrew Robinson píše v Pá 18. 12. 2009 v 09:23 -0700: > Also, please mention if there are any objections to using *.xml for > the facelets as opposed to *.xhtml which became the facelets standard. > BTW, this has been brought up to the EG and has been mentioned in the > facelets mailing list that *.xml should be the default as there is no > requirement that JSF pages/facelets need to produce XHTML or HTML (for > example seam already has support for email and PDF output) > > -Andrew > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Andrew Robinson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Currently the trinidad examples (trinidad-demo and trinidad-blank) > > use JSP and JSPX. Just turning facelets on for JSPX files isn't going > > to work as it causes faces messages due to <jsp:root> and > > <jsp.derective> tags. Furthermore, many pages use jsp include tags. To > > show proper support of JSF 2, we should not be supporting JSP in > > Trinidad's demo IMO (also some features of JSF 2 require facelets to > > be used AFAIK). > > > > I recommend: > > > > 1) Migrating all *.jspx to *.xml (I'd prefer to not use *.xhtml as > > discussed many times in the facelets user's list and on the 314 EG ML) > > 2) Replace include jsp tags with ui:include > > 3) Replace jsp:root with ui:composition > > > > Opinions? > > > > -Andrew > > >
