Re: [webbeans-dev] Automatically adding WebBeans configuration on JBoss 5

Pete Muir wrote: Several questions/comments about this one. At a minimum, the servlet-name should be defined in addition to the extension. The reasons become clear below. It is allowed to have more than one declaration of the FacesServlet. That is because you might want to have two instances with two different configurations and two different mappings. Do we say that if ANY FacesServlet is defined then we don't define another one for WebBeans? Or, do we define an additional one for WebBeans as long as it doesn't use the same default mapping? If the FacesServlet is defined in /WEB-INF/web.xml with the same servlet-name as the WebBeans default, then the entire auto-added FacesServlet should not be added. For the auto-added FacesServlet, should we also define defaults for dispaly-name, description, icon, init-param, load-on-startup, run-as, or security-role-ref? The JSF 1.2 spec 10.1.2 recommends extension mapping to be *.faces. FWIW, I prefer *.jsf, but perhaps we should stick with the spec's recommendation as the default? Since we key off the presence of a faces-config.xml file, is this any faces-config.xml, or only one found in /WEB-INF? I think that if practical, FacesServlet should be added any time a faces-config.xml is present in any of the locations specified in JSF 1.2 spec section 10.4.2 Application Startup Behavior. What's more, a faces-config file can be specified using a javax.faces.CONFIG_FILES context param in web.xml. Since I assume we plan to support web.xml fragments, a la Servlet 3.0, we also need to look into every web.xml fragment in every jar to see if it defines javax.faces.CONFIG_FILES. It's possible to have a JSF app with no faces-config.xml file. Is a faces-config.xml required for WebBeans? Are there any considerations for portlets? Portlets don't use the FacesServlet at all but perhaps JSR-301 portlets will need some auto-config as well? Does the WebBeans spec say anything about portlets? Stan