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

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(a)virtua.com&gt; wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, David Geary <clarity.training(a)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(a)gmail.com&gt; "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