Any idea on JBoss 7 AS?

Ivo


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Stephen Connolly <
[email protected]> wrote:

> jetty's is more fun... though you can hack it with one of the override
> methods
>
>
> On 28 May 2013 15:05, Mark H. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:49:26PM +0100, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > > On 28 May 2013 14:37, Mark H. Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 02:20:15PM -0300, Alberto Ivo wrote:
> > > > > The differences between the web.xml is
> > > > >
> > > > > <context-param>
> > > > > <param-name>javax.faces.PROJECT_STAGE</param-name>
> > > > >  <param-value>*Development | Production*</param-value>
> > > > > </context-param>
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't that sort of information be supplied by the container
> rather
> > > > than baked into the app?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > One would think so, but sadly that is not the way the spec was written.
> > >
> > > According to http://css.dzone.com/news/jsf-20-new-feature-preview-ser
> > >
> > > You can use a JNDI variable to override: java:comp/env/jsf/ProjectStage
> > >
> > > So if that works for the JSF impl you are using you should be able to
> > > configure the container so that all deployed apps see the
> > > java:comp/env/jsf/ProjectStage value you want them to see... thereby
> > > removing the problem entirely.
> > >
> > > Older JSF 2 implementations may have issues though... but should be
> fine
> > on
> > > all JSF 2.1+ etc
> >
> > I suppose it depends on your container.  In Tomcat I'd write an
> > external context descriptor something like:
> >
> >   <Context ...>
> >     <Parameter name='javax.faces.PROJECT_STAGE'
> >                value='Development'
> >                override='false'/>
> >   </Context>
> >
> > and omit the <context-param> from web.xml, letting the value default
> > to Production.
> >
> > I think I recall being able to do something similar in Jetty.
> >
> > --
> > Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   [email protected]
> > Machines should not be friendly.  Machines should be obedient.
> >
>

Reply via email to