I prefere .faces for virtual mapping.
-Matthias
On 6/8/06, Adam Brod <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have seen some Sun documentation where they are trying to recommend ".jsf" as a new file extension for jsp files that contain JSF components (just like they recommend the .jspf extension for jsps that are fragments). That of course is very confusing since many people use the .jsf as a virutal mapped extension in their webapps.
Ugh.
We use .faces since it is easy to diambiguate from .jsp.
Adam Brod
Product Development Team
[email protected] Re: MyFacesExtensionsFilter?
That's why they pay you the big buck$ :-). You are correct, I changed it to
.jsp from .jsf and it worked.
The reference page needs to be updated - it has .jsf - I copied from that
page.
<filter-mapping>
<filter-name>MyFacesExtensionsFilter</filter-name>
<url-pattern>*.jsp</url-pattern>
</filter-mapping>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/MyFacesExtensionsFilter--t1756467.html#a4777515
Sent from the MyFaces - Users forum at Nabble.com.
Disclaimer: This electronic mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this email, and destroy all copies of this email and any attachments. Thank you.
--
Matthias Wessendorf
Aechterhoek 18
48282 Emsdetten
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
