On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Ed Burns <Ed.Burns(a)sun.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:30:57 -0400, Neil Griffin <neil.griffin(a)liferay.com > said: NG> Hi Guys, NG> I can't remember -- was it a conscious decision to not have a NG> @PhaseListener annotation in JSF 2.0? Yes, we decided not to have it because we'd need lots of additional information related to the timing of discovery. As I was driving down the road, this exact thought occurred to me. The annotation would have to support ordering for phase listeners in the same classpath and it would end up being pretty complicated. Btw, it's the same reason interceptors have to be declared/activated in an XML file for JSR-299. -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://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan