Could the annotation simply be named @FacesConfig ?
Perhaps that would better match the <faces-config> top-level document element as well as the filename of the faces-config.xml descriptor.
Just a thought...
On May 30, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Edward Burns wrote:
> This one goes out particularly to David Schneider, who requested this
> feature on behalf of Oracle's ADF framework.
>
> David, does this fit the bill? I'm looking to keep this as simple as
> possible.
>
> A jsf-api/src/main/java/javax/faces/lifecycle/FacesConfigDocumentPopulator.java
>
> * <p class="changed_added_2_2">Methods annotated with this annotation will be
> * assumed to return {_at_code void} and take a single {_at_code org.w3c.dom.Document}
> * argument. The {_at_code Document} argument will be empty aside from being
> * pre-configured to be in the proper
> * namespace for an Application Configuration Resources file, and must conform
> * to that schema as defined in the specification.</p>
> *
> * <div class="changed_added_2_2">
> *
> * <p>Ordering of Artifacts</p>
> *
> * <p>If the document is made to contain an {_at_code <ordering>} element,
> * as specified in the section <em>Ordering of Artifacts</em> in the
> * specification prose document, the document will be prioritized
> * accordingly. Otherwise, the document will be placed in the list at
> * the "lowest" priority, meaning any conflicts that may arise between
> * the argument document and any other Application Configuration
> * Resources are resolved in favor of the other document.</p>
>
> M test/agnostic/pom.xml
> A test/agnostic/lifecycle/pom.xml
> ...
>
> - TDD test, currently fails but for this commented out code:
>
> + // PENDING(mriem): make this pass
> + // assertTrue(pageText.contains("MyPhaseListener called"));
>
> This was committed as revision 10066 to the Mojarra trunk.
>
> Ed
>
> --
> | edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
> | homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
> | 31 Business days til JSF 2.2 Public Review to EG