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> 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>
>
>
>>
>>> "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