quality@glassfish.java.net

Re: Optional web.xml for JSF

From: Ed Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:27:18 -0700

>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:09:58 +0700, Cay Horstmann <cay.horstmann_at_gmail.com> said:

CH> Thanks Ed! I think the rules changed. Originally, one of the rules was
CH> "Any initialization parameters start with javax.faces". That would
CH> have applied for me because I set the project stage. But the new rules
CH> that you cite only apply to javax.faces.CONFIG_FILES. Not something
CH> most people would fuss with...

We didn't want to map it to liberally.

CH> That's too bad. Hopefully we can go back to the old rule.

CH> I also noted that the rule "Any of the classes in the web application
CH> uses a JSF 2.0 annotation" is gone. That is ok--my classes had CDI
CH> annotations, and going forward, that's what one would expect.

I'm glad you agree with that one.

Ed

-- 
| edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
| homepage:               | http://ridingthecrest.com/
|  2 Business Days til JSF 2.2 Early Draft Review
| 38 Business Days til JSF 2.2 Public Review
| 126 Business Days til JSF 2.2 Proposed Final Draft