Return-Path: 
 <users-return-60607-apmail-myfaces-users-archive=myfaces.apache.org@myfaces.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-myfaces-users-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EBB3110D11
	for <apmail-myfaces-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Thu,  2 May 2013 13:02:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 42277 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2013 13:02:25 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-users-archive@myfaces.apache.org
Received: (qmail 41854 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2013 13:02:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@myfaces.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@myfaces.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@myfaces.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.myfaces.apache.org>
Reply-To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list users@myfaces.apache.org
Received: (qmail 41818 invoked by uid 99); 2 May 2013 13:02:18 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 May 2013 13:02:18 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of titou10.titou10@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.67 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.220.67] (HELO mail-pa0-f67.google.com) (209.85.220.67)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 May 2013 13:02:11 +0000
Received: by mail-pa0-f67.google.com with SMTP id rl6so473181pac.2
        for <users@myfaces.apache.org>; Thu, 02 May 2013 06:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=9+9rlszFmyngXUC9AJOfQkjhJGyj7iUTOxwY3hoRZuM=;
        b=tylcEntqt/U0Wlf4QPf2Uqjw0qflGIlPjY2WAdOv8CHixfSBdP3HBLBIHDfuAuiOWi
         8qTYzEhqoULekLKGPZS751ziXRvNaG4hJS6GA0WVeRg95nef/WCsz/wpU7F74UEqdBJH
         KU9n80HJt7XusgLdUIqrTJ0AUeFKvSqA8/d994Pcfj6kzsCDr+oEOBWZvylRAQ6FHZ5z
         G2OGghl++5WfVhECB/pr+p/fyD+3yjq1K00Ey3P1sRM5O4OxjL9QN0frmRqaK+wuLJK+
         Y5l8TU+Oje18aumL7UOpnY/l43jQHcIXTJMwur0BrQIDO2N5TIResmxILPIsB2P0Mjl6
         81LQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.69.1.39 with SMTP id bd7mr8666760pbd.188.1367499710635; Thu,
 02 May 2013 06:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.26.4 with HTTP; Thu, 2 May 2013 06:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 09:01:50 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAF9KzQXq4c5hrkSLCB76pifBGvy_KAog7L7--9Y2H62R94M20w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Myfaces: not existing props handled differently with
 faces-config/resource-bundle vs f:loadBundle ?
From: titou10 titou10 <titou10.titou10@gmail.com>
To: users@myfaces.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

It seems that the handling of unknown properties is different when we
load the resource bundle with  <f:loadbundle> vs declaring it in the
"resource-bundle" clause in faces-config.xml

With :
- no resource-bundle clause in faces-config.xml
- a <f:loadundled var="msg"> tag in the facelets  page
#{msg['not.existing.prop']}  in the page displays
"???not.existing.prop???" on the page which is the expected result

Now, with:
- a resource-bundle clause in faces-config.xml pointing to the
resource bundle (<var>msg</var>)
- no <f:loadundled> tag in the facelets  page
#{msg['not.existing.prop']}  displays the error page with
"javax.faces.FacesException: javax.el.ELException:
/pagesApp/accueil.xhtml: Property 'not.existing.prop' not found on
type java.util.PropertyResourceBundle"

We were expecting the same result in both cases, ie the page
displaying "???not.existing.prop???"
Is this a bug or does it work as design?
FI, Both cases works fine if the property exist in the resource bundle
We use Myfaces embedded in WebSphere v8.5.0.2