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

On 21 Dec 2008, at 19:38, Stan Silvert wrote: > Pete Muir wrote: >>> >>> And one for the JSF2 deployer >>> >>> 5) if faces-config.xml is present, automatically add the >>> FacesServlet, it's mapping to the .jsf extension. > 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. including the mapping. This is more a default for JBoss AS, not just for WB I think... I think this is a good idea, especially if we choose a sensible name, like "Faces Servlet". > 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? display-name (used for GUI tooling) - default icon (used for GUI tooling) - default description (descriptive text about parent element) - maybe useful load-on-startup - we always set this to 1 in Seam. run-as - default security-role-ref - default if people want to override, then they can do. > 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? Agreed. > 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. I was thinking just a faces-config.xml in the war is enough. Otherwise, won't get get confusion between app server libs. We need something *in the user deployment* to key off. Remember, these are only defaults to get people started. > It's possible to have a JSF app with no faces-config.xml file. Is a > faces-config.xml required for WebBeans? No. > 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? Up to portal team I think. > Does the WebBeans spec say anything about portlets? No. N.B. This isn't spec driven, this is value-add for the RI/JBoss.