Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 71990 invoked from network); 20 May 2009 12:17:37 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 20 May 2009 12:17:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 20773 invoked by uid 500); 20 May 2009 12:17:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 20717 invoked by uid 500); 20 May 2009 12:17:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 20709 invoked by uid 99); 20 May 2009 12:17:50 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 May 2009 12:17:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [81.169.146.160] (HELO mo-p00-ob.rzone.de) (81.169.146.160) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 May 2009 12:17:38 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1242821838; l=1366; s=domk; d=schnurpfeil.de; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From: Date:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH; bh=Y4GlGjMbqe5Um3RRJgP118M1/AY=; b=qTTj8wjNUCKB7D3TgdjXMX79NSXRJHypu+eCKPZ2tX+eZz0DoRArspatvVUakUd53Mz RwFQj8uiTGCbQwkGygJI2/V8KB5e8ebhLqiNO7cvVObgmH7pc2SuIILirbl8sSpZPmcM4 np2//vXweq+ppkwVAM7M7GCmuTrXb8y/OZ8= X-RZG-AUTH: :OWgLVVOrc/H5jRUHzJx9OEHjqKa3f1yegZ7XycUjPttGZ2HXfxekQt06PkiiFcU= X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from [192.168.1.167] (pd95ba13a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.91.161.58]) by post.strato.de (mrclete mo47) (RZmta 18.34) with ESMTP id K041a0l4KBhROp ; Wed, 20 May 2009 14:17:16 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <4A13F4CC.2060304@schnurpfeil.de> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:17:16 +0200 From: Udo Schnurpfeil User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development , jsr-314-comments@jcp.org, jsr-315-comments@jcp.org Subject: JSF 2.0 vs. Servlet 3.0: inconsistency with the resources directory? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi there, I think I've found a inconsistency between JSF 2.0 and Servlet API 3.0 with respect to the resources management. JSF 2.0 (PFDC 20090327): Resources are located in the web-app root under /resources (Section 2.6.1.1) or in a jar file under /META-INF/resources (Section 2.6.1.2) Servlet 3.0 (PFD April 2009): Resources are located in the web-app root under / (always) or in a jar file under /META-INF/resources (Section 4.6) As you can see, the path in the jar-files are the same, but the path under the web-app root is different. That may provoke some problems while dealing with the resources for application developer and library developer. Example: writing a JSF tag using an image as resource: welcome.png When I put the image in a jar: /META-INF/resources/welcome.png can be found by JSF and by the servlet container (to load the image into the browser) under the same path. The renderer has to write the URL quite simple: /welcome.png When I put the image in the web-app root (under /resources), the JSF component renderer has to add the resources directory manually: /resources/welcome.png But the renderer normally doesn't know about the real position of the resource (and that is good, of course). Has anybody have some comments about this? Regards, Udo