Hi
In the last days this enhancements were commited:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added GZIP compression to ExtendedResourceHandler and these params:
/**
* Enable or disable gzip compressions for resources served by
this extended resource handler. By default is disabled (false).
*/
@JSFWebConfigParam(defaultValue="false")
public static final String INIT_PARAM_GZIP_RESOURCES_ENABLED =
"org.apache.myfaces.commons.GZIP_RESOURCES_ENABLED";
/**
* Indicate the suffix used to recognize resources that should be
compressed. By default is ".css .js".
*/
@JSFWebConfigParam(defaultValue=".css, .js")
public static final String INIT_PARAM_GZIP_RESOURCES_SUFFIX =
"org.apache.myfaces.commons.GZIP_RESOURCES_SUFFIX";
public static final String
INIT_PARAM_GZIP_RESOURCES_EXTENSIONS_DEFAULT = ".css .js";
/**
* Indicate if gzipped files are stored on a temporal directory to
serve them later. By default is true. If this is
* disable, the files are compressed when they are served.
*/
@JSFWebConfigParam(defaultValue="true")
public static final String INIT_PARAM_CACHE_DISK_GZIP_RESOURCES =
"org.apache.myfaces.commons.CACHE_DISK_GZIP_RESOURCES";
by default compression is set to false. It could be good to enable
compression only on files bigger than some specified lenght, to allow
finer tuning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and these enhancements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added new scanning and parsing of myfaces-resources-config.xml files.
It was added this param:
/**
* This param allow to override the default strategy to locate
myfaces-resources-config.xml files, that will be parsed later. In this
way
* it is possible to include new source locations or handle cases
like OSGi specific setup.
*/
@JSFWebConfigParam
public static final String
INIT_PARAM_EXTENDED_RESOURCE_HANDLER_CONFIG_URL_PROVIDER =
"org.apache.myfaces.commons.EXTENDED_RESOURCE_HANDLER_CONFIG_URL_PROVIDER";
I think just a param that instantiate a class implementing
MyFacesResourceHandlerUrlProvider is enough. The default algorithm
loook on classpath for META-INF/myfaces-resources-config.xml and on
servlet context for WEB-INF/myfaces-resources-config.xml files.
myfaces-resources-config.xml files can be used with these options:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<myfaces-resources-config>
<!-- Mark this library to be handled by Extended Resource Handler -->
<library>
<library-name>libraryA</library-name>
</library>
<!-- Indicate this library has another name, so if libraryC is used,
resources should be redirected to libraryC1 -->
<library>
<library-name>libraryC</library-name>
<redirect-name>libraryC1</redirect-name>
</library>
<!-- Allow to customize the request path generated, to do things like
take library resources from a Content Delivery Network (CDN) or just
take it directly from an specified location. Note it is responsibility
of the developer to configure it properly, and the resources should
exists locally under the library name selected. -->
<library>
<library-name>libraryB</library-name>
<request-path>http://someaddress.com/alternatePath/#{resourceName}</request-path>
<!-- This example shows the variables that can be called
inside the expression to construct the request map
<request-path>#{extensionMapping ? '' :
mapping}/javax.faces.resource/$/#{localePrefix}/#{libraryName}/#{resourceName}#{extensionMapping
? mapping : ''}</request-path>
-->
</library>
</myfaces-resources-config>
All libraries referenced here will be handled by the extended
ResourceHandler. Additionally, there is an option to redirect a
library name into another, to deal with possible conflicts between
resources loaded, specially javascript libraries. And finally there is
an option to override the request-path with an EL expression, so if
you have a library with some static resources it is easy to construct
an url to load them from a Content Delivery Network (CDN) or just from
some specified path. The only thing you should note is the library
should exists locally under the library name, to detect when a
resource can be resolved or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not tested it fully, but in my opinion it looks good. I has the
best of the previous AdvancedResourceHandler with some new valuable
features proposed.
If no objections I'll remove the previous code, since it was
integrated on the alternate solution.
Suggestions and tomatoes are welcome
Leonardo Uribe
2011/6/14 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>:
> Hi Jakob
>
> 2011/6/14 Jakob Korherr <[email protected]>:
>> Hi Leonardo,
>>
>>>Because set prefix and suffix mapping for the same webapp could lead
>>>to inconsistencies.
>>
>> Which inconsistencies exactly? Please give an example, I can't really
>> think of any!
>>
>
> Let's take a look to AdvanceResource.getRequestPath:
>
> public String getRequestPath()
> {
> FacesContext facesContext = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
> StringBuilder path = new StringBuilder();
> path.append(ResourceUtils.getFacesServletPrefix(facesContext));
> .....
>
> Now look on getFacesServletPrefix:
>
> public static String getFacesServletPrefix(FacesContext facesContext)
> {
> ExternalContext externalContext = facesContext.getExternalContext();
> Map<String, Object> applicationMap =
> externalContext.getApplicationMap();
>
> // check if already cached
> String prefix = (String) applicationMap.get(FACES_SERVLET_PREFIX_KEY);
> if (prefix == null)
> {
> // try to extract it from current request
> prefix = getFacesServletPrefixMapping(facesContext);
> ....
>
> public static String getFacesServletPrefixMapping(FacesContext
> facesContext)
> {
> ExternalContext externalContext = facesContext.getExternalContext();
>
> String pathInfo = externalContext.getRequestPathInfo();
> String servletPath = externalContext.getRequestServletPath();
>
> if (pathInfo != null)
> {
> return servletPath;
> }
> else
> {
> // In the case of extension mapping, no "extra path" is available.
> // Still it's possible that prefix-based mapping has been used.
> // Actually, if there was an exact match no "extra path"
> // is available (e.g. if the url-pattern is "/faces/*"
> // and the request-uri is "/context/faces").
> int slashPos = servletPath.lastIndexOf('/');
> int extensionPos = servletPath.lastIndexOf('.');
> if (extensionPos > -1 && extensionPos > slashPos)
> {
> // we are only interested in the prefix mapping
> return null;
> }
> else
> {
> // There is no extension in the given servletPath and therefore
> // we assume that it's an exact match using
> prefix-based mapping.
> return servletPath;
> }
> }
> }
>
> The code takes pathInfo/servletPath information and prepend it to the
> beggining. The first bug is the code prepend the extension when suffix
> mapping is used!. But look the mapping is saved on the application
> map. So on further request, the mapping is retrieved from application
> map, so if the first request is suffix mapping, all later resource
> request paths will be generated wrong, even if prefix mapping is used.
>
> The problem is to know if prefix mapping is used you should parse
> web.xml file, but that's wrong, because in servlet 3.0 spec you don't
> necessary have that file (web fragment?). In conclusion there is no
> way to "detect" and generate the mapping correctly.
>
> The nice part about the filter is you can put some code to detect
> automatically if the filter is registered or not and act according.
> This is the param:
>
> /**
> * Indicate if this filter is being used to process request. It
> works in three modes:
> *
> * <ul>
> * <li>true: assume the filter is correctly setup.</li>
> * <li>check: check if the filter has been setup and if that so,
> use it. Otherwise, it uses FacesServlet (use prefix mapping to make
> all features work).</li>
> * <li>false: filter is not used at all.</li>
> * </ul>
> */
> @JSFWebConfigParam(defaultValue="check", expectedValues="true,
> false, check")
> public static final String INIT_PARAM_USE_EXTENDED_RESOURCE_FILTER
> = "org.apache.myfaces.commons.USE_EXTENDED_RESOURCE_FILTER";
> public static final String
> INIT_PARAM_USE_EXTENDED_RESOURCE_FILTER_DEFAULT = "check";
>
> In this way, there will not be inconsistencies, because we have the
> three options:
>
> - If prefix mapping is used -> prepend the prefix
> - If suffix mapping is used and no filter setup -> use suffix mapping
> like always
> - If suffix mapping is used and filter setup -> use filter prefix mapping
>
>>>[...] If a page is rendered using suffix mapping,
>>>resource paths will use that and not prefix mapping, because faces
>>>mapping is derived from the request path.
>>
>> Nope. That's the whole point of the AdvancedResourceHandler. It always
>> uses prefix mapping, regardless of what the current page is using!!
>> Just check the code (before your commit) ;)
>>
>
> As you can see, I have found many bugs in the previous code. I usually
> take my time to check this stuff. In fact, I implemented all
> ResourceHandler implementation in MyFaces, and other alternate
> implementations on tomahawk and sandbox for different use cases, so I
> know step by step what says the spec and how the code works.
>
>> I have to say I am not a real fan of this filter. It's like in the old
>> days.. with tomahawk...
>>
>
> Note every JSF library uses a filter! Trinidad, RichFaces, PrimeFaces,
> IceFaces. It could be good to find a solution without use a filter but
> based on the previous discussion I don't see any. I don't get the
> point. If you have a better idea please send your comments.
>
> I think the strategy proposed is an advance, because you only use it
> when it is necessary. The other alternative is tell users don't use
> suffix mapping.
>
>>> I think the opposite in this case, because the previous syntax is
>>> ambiguous, so you can't decide how to get the libraryName and
>>> resourceName from the resourceBasePath, and the spec requires describe
>>> that in a explicit way. Think about a resource on:
>>>
>>> /de/mydir/myresource.js (resourceName="de/mydir/myresource.js")
>>>
>>> will produce this request path:
>>>
>>> http://{server}[:port]/{appPath}/javax.faces.resource/de_AT/mydir/myresource.js
>>>
>>> The algorithm will detect de as a locale prefix, mydir as a library
>>> and myresource.js as a resource name, but that's wrong because the
>>> resource name is de/mydir/myresource.js.
>>
>> I am sorry, but this is wrong, Leo.
>>
>> At first a resourceName of "de/mydir/myresource.js" should not be
>> used. It should rather be resourceName="myresource.js" and
>> libraryName="de/mydir". I know the spec does not explicitly tell us
>> that the resourceName must not be a path, but it is the only way it
>> really makes sence, if you think about it. Otherwise separation of
>> libraryName and resourceName would not be necessary!
>>
>
> The problem is "should not be used" is not an option. I'm saying here
> that the same url could be handled by both the default and the
> proposed method. Assume that a developer will do everything you
> imagine is not very realistic.
>
>> Furthermore, a resourceName of "de/mydir/myresource.js" would produce
>> the following path (you did skip "de" and "faces"):
>>
>> http://{server}[:port]/{appPath}/faces/javax.faces.resource/de_AT/de/mydir/myresource.js
>>
>> ..thus producing a resource with libraryName="de/mydir" and
>> resourceName="myresource.js". And this is exactly what is expected of
>> it!!
>
> No, because "de" is a valid locale!.
>
> I think that the relationship between Resource instances and request
> paths generated should be 1:1 and should be symmetric. That means, if
> I call this code from a renderer:
>
> ResourceHandler.createResource("","","de/mydir/myresource.js");
>
> Later the ResourceHandler implementation, when
> handleResourceRequest(FacesContext) is called should call the same
> method, but instead it will call:
>
> ResourceHandler.createResource("de","mydir","myresource.js");
>
> Who should attend the request? the extended resource handler or the
> default one. The first call expect the default one, but the second?.
>
> In conclusion, if the example does not fulfit the two conditions (be
> 1:1 and symmetric), for any imaginable Resource instance, it will not
> be correctly specified.
>
>>
>>> Anyway we need something to "diferentiate" between the old and the
>>> alternate syntax, so use '$/' is as good as any other we can imagine.
>>
>> I don't think we need to do this differentiation in the first place. I
>> see no reason for it. My code in MyFaces commons (before you committed
>> your stuff) did not use it either and it worked well! Of course, I did
>> not have this filter, but I don't like that anyway (see above).
>>
>
> Why don't you like it? do you have something better in mind?. If you
> want I change of opinion, please provide me with arguments to think
> the opposite. I'm always open to any suggestions or critics.
>
>>> My interest is put this as a module for JSF 2.0, because there is
>>> nothing that prevent us doing it, and this is the "base stone" to make
>>> components with libraries like dojo, that requires load modules from
>>> derived base paths. After that, we can push this on the spec for JSF
>>> 2.2 and the EG will decide.
>>
>> That's the general idea. And note that I am the guy working on the
>> resource handler stuff in the JSF 2.2 EG ;)
>>
>>
>> One more note at the end: actually I am not very happy that you
>> committed your code directly into the svn without providing it as
>> patch before. You did not do any work on the AdvancedResourceHandler
>> before (it was all my code) and it was a pretty big commit (even took
>> 2 commit-mails). Thus you gave me no choice to take a look at it and
>> discuss the changes with you. If I did something like this, the first
>> thing you would do is reverting my commit and providing it as patch so
>> that we can discuss it. I won't do that, but actually it's kinda
>> annoying...
>>
>
> I commited the code instead create a patch, because the code commited
> does not override the previous code. So you can put the two solutions
> side by side and compare them in a easier way. If something doesn't
> like us, we can remove the added files and that's it, there is no harm
> or you don't have to do something difficult to revert the code,
> right?. Note the code has not released yet, so we don't have to
> preserve the package or the class name or any structure.
>
> Things are different when you have already code and you need to
> "override" something, to include something new. A patch is better in
> that case. But in this case, I'm working on a completely different
> solution from scratch.
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
>> Regards,
>> Jakob
>>
>> 2011/6/14 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>:
>>> Hi Jakob
>>>
>>> 2011/6/13 Jakob Korherr <[email protected]>:
>>>> Hi Leo,
>>>>
>>>> Overall this seems nice, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> However, I have some comments on your solution:
>>>>
>>>> 1) If I have to configure a Filter in web.xml I can just as good
>>>> define a prefix mapping for the FacesServlet. I don't see why an
>>>> additional Filter is better than an additional servlet-mapping. So why
>>>> exactly?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because set prefix and suffix mapping for the same webapp could lead
>>> to inconsistencies. If a page is rendered using suffix mapping,
>>> resource paths will use that and not prefix mapping, because faces
>>> mapping is derived from the request path.
>>>
>>> We can't change FacesServlet to only handle resource request for a
>>> specific mapping, but with the filter this is done by default. Note
>>> the filter will be used only when suffix mapping is used. I tried it
>>> using FacesServlet but it is useless, because you should do changes on
>>> jsf impl, so at the end it will only work on myfaces, and the
>>> intention is provide it as a module for any jsf implementation.
>>>
>>>> 2) The locale in the resource path really is essential, please do NOT
>>>> remove it. I did a lot of tests with different browsers about this and
>>>> you just cannot verify that every user will get the right (localized)
>>>> resource, if the user's locale is not on the request path. The two
>>>> main problems here are: a) the user changes the locale, but the
>>>> browser uses the cached resource (with the old locale), because it
>>>> cannot know that it has changed (some browsers will not even start a
>>>> request for it) - however, if the locale is in the path, it will
>>>> change and thus the browser will trigger a new request for the
>>>> resource. b) you cannot really know if there are multiple versions of
>>>> a resource for different locales, because you should not scan all jar
>>>> files for them (--> remember the performance-issue we had with this
>>>> stuff) and furthermore the classpath might change!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, good to know that. The current code works "forcing" output the
>>> locale, so we can just let things as is.
>>>
>>>> 3)
>>>>> http://{server}[:port]/{appPath}/javax.faces.resource/{locale}/{libraryName}/[resourceName]
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, this syntax is ambiguous, because it is not possible to
>>>>> identify if the request should be handled by the default algorithm or
>>>>> by the "extended" ResourceHandler. So I tried this one on
>>>>> ExtendedResourceHandler:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://{server}[:port]/{appPath}/javax.faces.resource/$/{locale}/{libraryName}/[resourceName]
>>>>
>>>> This is a nice idea, but I guess this will not be an option for the
>>>> JSF 2.2 resource handler (which will most likely be a modified version
>>>> of the AdvancedResourceHandler).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the opposite in this case, because the previous syntax is
>>> ambiguous, so you can't decide how to get the libraryName and
>>> resourceName from the resourceBasePath, and the spec requires describe
>>> that in a explicit way. Think about a resource on:
>>>
>>> /de/mydir/myresource.js (resourceName="de/mydir/myresource.js")
>>>
>>> will produce this request path:
>>>
>>> http://{server}[:port]/{appPath}/javax.faces.resource/de_AT/mydir/myresource.js
>>>
>>> The algorithm will detect de as a locale prefix, mydir as a library
>>> and myresource.js as a resource name, but that's wrong because the
>>> resource name is de/mydir/myresource.js.
>>>
>>> Anyway we need something to "diferentiate" between the old and the
>>> alternate syntax, so use '$/' is as good as any other we can imagine.
>>> My interest is put this as a module for JSF 2.0, because there is
>>> nothing that prevent us doing it, and this is the "base stone" to make
>>> components with libraries like dojo, that requires load modules from
>>> derived base paths. After that, we can push this on the spec for JSF
>>> 2.2 and the EG will decide.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please take this stuff into account - thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jakob
>>>>
>>>> 2011/6/14 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I committed on myfaces-commons-resourcehandler module on trunk an
>>>>> alternative solution for this issue. It is still not complete, so the
>>>>> idea is discuss it. See:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MFCOMMONS-33
>>>>>
>>>>> From previous discussion, on AdvancedResource handler we have:
>>>>>
>>>>> a. relative paths between resources (css files referencing images
>>>>> without using #resource['..'])
>>>>> b. caching resources in the client (disabled if ProjectStage ==
>>>>> Development)
>>>>> c. GZIP compression and local cache in tmp dir (disabled if
>>>>> ProjectStage == Development)
>>>>> d. i18n (supporting country code and language).
>>>>>
>>>>> We had the following proposals:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. reutilize resource information to prevent unnecessary calls to
>>>>> getResource() (shared ResourceCache).
>>>>> 2. Alternate xml file
>>>>> 3. Make it work with suffix mapping.
>>>>> 4. Add a SPI interface to delegate .xml resource scanning.
>>>>> 5. Use content delivery network (CDN) to load known javascript or other
>>>>> resource files like jQuery or prototype.
>>>>>
>>>>> The objective is provide a solution for all those wanted features.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most important one is number 3. (make it work with suffix
>>>>> mapping), because it limits the scope where a. (relative paths between
>>>>> resources) could be applied. Use a parse on some files it is not a
>>>>> very good solution, so I tried to found an alternative. The most
>>>>> simple one is use a filter that just do the "resource handling" part,
>>>>> just like FacesServlet does. So with suffix mapping you only need to
>>>>> add this on web.xml file:
>>>>>
>>>>> <filter>
>>>>> <filter-name>Faces Filter</filter-name>
>>>>>
>>>>> <filter-class>org.apache.myfaces.commons.resourcehandler.filter.ResourceHandlerFilter</filter-class>
>>>>> </filter>
>>>>>
>>>>> <filter-mapping>
>>>>> <filter-name>Faces Filter</filter-name>
>>>>> <url-pattern>/javax.faces.resource/*</url-pattern>
>>>>> </filter-mapping>
>>>>>
>>>>> and that's it. In this way, there is no need to any parser, just put
>>>>> the files on a library, register it on the xml file. If you are using
>>>>> prefix mapping for Faces Servlet, you will not need that entry,
>>>>> because everything will be handled from Faces Servlet.
>>>>>
>>>>> With this solution, javascript libraries like dojo that loads files or
>>>>> have css resources with url(...) entries will work without any
>>>>> changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen this issue:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MFCOMMONS-30
>>>>> Change URL management of Advanced JSF 2 ResourceHandler
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea was use this
>>>>>
>>>>> http://{server}[:port]/{appPath}/javax.faces.resource/{locale}/{libraryName}/[resourceName]
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, this syntax is ambiguous, because it is not possible to
>>>>> identify if the request should be handled by the default algorithm or
>>>>> by the "extended" ResourceHandler. So I tried this one on
>>>>> ExtendedResourceHandler:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://{server}[:port]/{appPath}/javax.faces.resource/$/{locale}/{libraryName}/[resourceName]
>>>>>
>>>>> The first $ caracter says this extension should be handled by the
>>>>> ExtendedResourceHandler. We can go further and allow this notation:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://{server}[:port]/{appPath}/javax.faces.resource/$$/{libraryName}/[resourceName]
>>>>>
>>>>> In this way there is no ambiguity, and we don't need to force locale
>>>>> to be output. This could be possible too:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://{server}[:port]/{appPath}/javax.faces.resource/$$$/[resourceName]
>>>>>
>>>>> But that it is not really necessary at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed code still does not contains the options for GZIP
>>>>> compression, because the previous algorithm does not take into account
>>>>> what happen on concurrent requests (two threads modifying the same
>>>>> file at the same time). I did an algorithm for sandbox for JSF 2.0
>>>>> s:roundedPanel. It uses an application scope map and some synchronized
>>>>> blocks to ensure only one thread writes the file. Exactly the same
>>>>> pattern works in this case, so the only thing we need to do is
>>>>> refactor that code and put it here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that sounds good? if no objections commit the proposals here soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jakob Korherr
>>>>
>>>> blog: http://www.jakobk.com
>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
>>>> work: http://www.irian.at
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jakob Korherr
>>
>> blog: http://www.jakobk.com
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
>> work: http://www.irian.at
>>
>
