Martin, I think I'll make it a point to update our documentation at some point in the future to describe WHY we're needing the extension filter mappings that we do. I know that it was a source of confusion for me, and I never understood why it required /faces until recently.
Thanks for clearing this up. On 12/21/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes there is - the extension filter is also used to add the necessary > > <script/>, <link/> > > tags to the <head/> of JSF-pages. - you wouldn't get this if it was > not mapped to the .JSF suffix. > > The rule is: map it to whatever your JSF-pages are mapped to, plus map > it to /faces/*... > > regards, > > Martin > > On 12/21/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's my understanding that the tomahawk component *creates* urls > > containing the /faces/* path in your response. The extensions filter > > then resolves those requests. > > > > This does raise another question. Is there any reason why the > > extension filter has a *.jsf mapping? It would seem less confusing > > if the only mapping provided for the extension filter in the > > documentation and examples was the "/faces/*" path if the other > > mapping is unnecessary. > > > > > > On 12/21/05, CD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That did not work as was expected since the /faces/* path is used nowhere > > > in > > > my application. Thank you for the suggestion though :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/21/05, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi ! > > > > > However, I am running into javascript errors resulting from > > > > > loadPopupScript not being defined as well as DateFormatSymbols not > > > > > being defined. > > > > You have to map the extension filter to /faces/* too. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Mario > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
