On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM, David Geary <clarity.training@gmail.com> wrote:

2009/5/7 Norbert Truchsess <norbert.truchsess@t-online.de>
you can ommit the xml-declaration being passed through by using
ui:composition:

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>

<ui:composition xmlns:ui="http://java.sun.com/jsf/facelets">

xmlns:f="http://java.sun.com/jsf/core"
xmlns:af="http://xmlns.oracle.com/adf/faces/rich">

<f:view>
<af:document/>
</f:view>
</ui:composition>

Yes, and this should be a recommended practice, should it not?

However, the preceeding fragment is XML, not XHTML. If you have a view implemented as a composition, and you reference it as an action of a button or link, the corresponding file must have a .xhtml extension, or the navigation handler won't find it. IOW...

<h:commandButton ... action="welcome"/>

...means the navigation handler will look for welcome.xhtml. If you name the file welcome.xml, you get an error message at runtime. But if welcome.xhtml uses a composition, like the preceeding code fragment, it's not an XHTML file, it's XML. Ugh.

Should the navigation handler also look for welcome.xml, or is that too naiive of a fix?

Why don't you just make the javax.faces.DEFAULT_SUFFIX .xml? I suppose you want to have a gradual migration. In that case, why can't JSF support multiple extensions, searched in priority order. I guess that is something an impl could provide (since migrations are something that you might look to a vendor to help you solve). The spec should assume you are using a single type (I guess).

-Dan