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

[Ales Justin]

I moved this discussion here:
  - http://seamframework.org/Community/MetadataAddons#comment56874

Pete Muir wrote:
> 
> 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.

-- 
----------------------------
Ales Justin
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
----------------------------