[jsr-314-open] FacesServlet declaration in Java EE 6

[Ted Goddard]

+1 for both mappings.

Ted.

On 2009-11-05, at 11:16 AM, Dan Allen wrote:

> Now that I think more about it, there really is no harm, and plenty  
> of benefits, in having both mapped, so +1 to both.
>
> -Dan
>
> p.s. In a way it's like having .jsp and .jspx mapped in JspServlet.
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann at virtua.com>  
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, David Geary <clarity.training at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> +1 from me as well, but shouldn't "should" be "must"?
>
> +1 for me for both mappings, and I agree with David -- "must" is  
> preferred.
>
>
> 2009/11/4 Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> "If the JSF container is used in a Servlet 3 (or newer) environment,  
> it should register an implementation of ServletContainerInitializer  
> (using Service Providers from the JAR file specification). The  
> ServletContainerInitializer should register the FacesServlet, with a  
> name of Faces Servlet, if an existing servlet is not yet registered  
> with this name. Furthermore, a suffix mapping of *.jsf [and/or a  
> prefix mapping of /faces/*] should be added."
>
> Well said. +1 from me.
>
> -Dan
>
> -- 
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> Registered Linux User #231597
>
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> Registered Linux User #231597
>
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen