Yep! We can discuss this stuff when the submodule is in place. Such things are very easy to change/configure in the StartupListener.
However, I think we should come up with a very standard default configuration. If the user wants something different, he will have to configure the mapping himself in the web.xml just as it is now. I am not a fan of too many configuration parameters which interfere with other configuration methods. Regards, Jakob 2010/3/7 Jan-Kees van Andel <[email protected]> > In other words: Convention over configuration ;-) > > I just think it's important to pick sensible defaults and to be able to > turn it off, for example using a context-param. > > For example, I think the mapping *.xhtml should also be default, but a > developer must be able to turn *.xhtml off, since it's a widely used > extension also outside of JSF... > > Regards, > Jan-Kees > > > 2010/3/7 Jakob Korherr <[email protected]> > > Hi Bernd, >> >> For some users it may be so ;) :D >> >> Look Bernd, it's not that big thing. It's just a class and a text file. So >> it is by no means a problem to ship this with MyFaces Core 2. Also Mojarra >> does something similar too! >> >> To your question: Nope! I just add the FacesServlet and the standard >> mappings /faces/*, *.jsf and maybe also *.faces, if there are no entries for >> the FacesServlet in the web.xml. If a user wants something special, he do >> will have to configure it in his web.xml. In this scenario my >> StartupListener will just do nothing. >> >> >> Regards, >> Jakob >> >> 2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann <[email protected]> >> >>> Hello Jakob, >>> >>> do you really think adding an other dependency is a real problem? >>> How do you configure prefix or suffix mapping? For each possible >>> configuration option an own impl version? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Bernd >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jakob Korherr <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Bernd, >>> > >>> > If this module wouldn't be a part of myfaces core, the users still >>> would >>> > have to configure something to run their MyFaces-2 apps in a EE6 >>> container >>> > (e.g. they'd have to include myfaces commons), which is not the target. >>> The >>> > target is to get rid of any unnecessary configuration to make the >>> > development process easier! >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > Jakob >>> > >>> > 2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann <[email protected]> >>> >> >>> >> Hello Jakob, >>> >> >>> >> I'm not really sure that this feature should be part of myfaces-core. >>> >> Maybe myfaces-commons would be a better place. But we can change this >>> >> later. >>> >> >>> >> +1 on commiting the module. >>> >> >>> >> Regards >>> >> >>> >> Bernd >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Jakob Korherr < >>> [email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hi Jan-Kees, >>> >> > >>> >> > Great :) >>> >> > >>> >> > I am currently testing on Tomcat, Jetty, GlassFish v3 and JBoss 6! >>> >> > >>> >> > Regards, >>> >> > Jakob >>> >> > >>> >> > 2010/3/6 Jan-Kees van Andel <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Hey, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> If it works on Jetty and Tomcat, I'd say +1 on committing the >>> module. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I can't think of big issues with committing it as a separate >>> module. >>> >> >> And >>> >> >> we can always revert if we have to. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Cool, can't wait to check it out! On what appserver are you testing >>> >> >> this >>> >> >> stuff Jakob? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Regards, >>> >> >> Jan-Kees >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2010/3/6 Jakob Korherr <[email protected]> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I managed to introduce the core submodule "implee6" on my local >>> >> >>> machine. >>> >> >>> This new submodule includes Java EE 6 dependencies and thus you >>> can >>> >> >>> use >>> >> >>> Servlet API 3.0 and other new things in it. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> When building MyFaces, this new submodule is built before the >>> normal >>> >> >>> impl >>> >> >>> submodule. Then the .class and the .java files are "injected" into >>> the >>> >> >>> impl-build. This is very similar to how shared_impl is included in >>> the >>> >> >>> myfaces-impl build at the moment, but without recompilation. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> In this way we are able to use the new services approach of Java >>> EE 6 >>> >> >>> to >>> >> >>> get rid of the Faces Servlet entries in web.xml, because in any >>> Java >>> >> >>> EE 6 >>> >> >>> container we can configure this dynamically at startup (see >>> >> >>> MYFACES-2579 for >>> >> >>> details). This also works fantastically on my local machine - it's >>> >> >>> really >>> >> >>> cool! >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Also with this method we are still Java EE 5 complaint, because >>> the EE >>> >> >>> 6 >>> >> >>> classes just won't get loaded in a non EE 6 environment, because >>> there >>> >> >>> are >>> >> >>> no dependencies from impl or shared to them. They are only called >>> (and >>> >> >>> loaded) by a Java EE 6 container via the services definition. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Furthermore I noticed that the Mojarra guys also include a similar >>> >> >>> solution to this in their newest build! >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Now, before I commit something of this, I wanted to ask if there >>> are >>> >> >>> any >>> >> >>> objections with this proposal. If so, please tell me your >>> concerns! >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Regards, >>> >> >>> Jakob >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
