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

[Pete Muir]

Can we keep development discussions on this mailing list? Otherwise  
not everyone who is involved in the RI development will see the  
discussions.

On 29 Dec 2008, at 12:40, Ales Justin wrote:

> I moved this discussion here:
> - http://seamframework.org/Community/MetadataAddons#comment56874
>
> Pete Muir wrote:
>> 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.
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------
> Ales Justin
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> ----------------------------