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@virtua.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:19 PM, David Geary <clarity.training@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@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