[webbeans-dev] Automatically adding WebBeans configuration on JBoss 5

[Pete Muir]

On 21 Dec 2008, at 19:38, Stan Silvert wrote:

> Pete Muir wrote:
>>>
>>> And one for the JSF2 deployer
>>>
>>> 5) if faces-config.xml is present, automatically add the  
>>> FacesServlet, it's mapping to the .jsf extension.
> Several questions/comments about this one.
> At a minimum, the servlet-name should be defined in addition to the  
> extension.  The reasons become clear below.
>
> It is allowed to have more than one declaration of the  
> FacesServlet.  That is because you might want to have two instances  
> with two different configurations and two different mappings. Do we  
> say that if ANY FacesServlet is defined then we don't define another  
> one for WebBeans?  Or, do we define an additional one for WebBeans  
> as long as it doesn't use the same default mapping?
>
> If the FacesServlet is defined in /WEB-INF/web.xml with the same  
> servlet-name as the WebBeans default, then the entire auto-added  
> FacesServlet should not be added.

including the mapping.

This is more a default for JBoss AS, not just for WB I think... I  
think this is a good idea, especially if we choose a sensible name,  
like "Faces Servlet".

> For the auto-added FacesServlet, should we also define defaults for  
> dispaly-name, description, icon, init-param, load-on-startup, run- 
> as, or security-role-ref?

display-name (used for GUI tooling) - default
icon (used for GUI tooling) - default
description (descriptive text about parent element) - maybe useful
load-on-startup - we always set this to 1 in Seam.
run-as - default
security-role-ref - default

if people want to override, then they can do.

> The JSF 1.2 spec 10.1.2 recommends extension mapping to be *.faces.   
> FWIW, I prefer *.jsf, but perhaps we should stick with the spec's  
> recommendation as the default?

Agreed.

> Since we key off the presence of a faces-config.xml file, is this  
> any faces-config.xml, or only one found in /WEB-INF?
> I think that if practical, FacesServlet should be added any time a  
> faces-config.xml is present in any of the locations specified in JSF  
> 1.2 spec section 10.4.2 Application Startup Behavior.  What's more,  
> a faces-config file can be specified using a  
> javax.faces.CONFIG_FILES context param in web.xml.  Since I assume  
> we plan to support web.xml fragments, a la Servlet 3.0, we also need  
> to look into every web.xml fragment in every jar to see if it  
> defines javax.faces.CONFIG_FILES.

I was thinking just a faces-config.xml in the war is enough.  
Otherwise, won't get get confusion between app server libs. We need  
something *in the user deployment* to key off. Remember, these are  
only defaults to get people started.

> It's possible to have a JSF app with no faces-config.xml file.  Is a  
> faces-config.xml required for WebBeans?

No.

> Are there any considerations for portlets?  Portlets don't use the  
> FacesServlet at all but perhaps JSR-301 portlets will need some auto- 
> config as well?

Up to portal team I think.

> Does the WebBeans spec say anything about portlets?

No.

N.B. This isn't spec driven, this is value-add for the RI/JBoss.