You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If an application which contains imports of any class under javax.faces.* is added to a Liberty server, <feature>jsf-2.2</feature> is automatically added to the feature list in server.xml. This is sensible when an application uses JSF but no feature which provides it is present in server.xml.
However, jsfContainer-2.2 is a feature which allows applications to provide their own implementation of the JSF specification while still using the specification interfaces. If jsfContainer-2.2 is already specified, It isn't ideal behavior to also enable jsf-2.2, since that would enable the implementation provided by the runtime, which I don't want. This is the current behavior.
If jsfContainer-2.2 is already specified, The jsfContainer implementers and I think the jsf-2.2 feature shouldn't be added automatically. Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hmm, looks like this accounts for the scenario where import javax.faces.* etc is used, but not for the case that no such interface is imported, but a faces-config.xml file exists. Looking...
The case where the jsf facet is enabled is also going to have to be addressed, I'd imagine.
I have found an approach which covers all situations in which jsf would be added but jsfContainer is already present: import, faces-config.xml, and facet.
If an application which contains imports of any class under
javax.faces.*
is added to a Liberty server,<feature>jsf-2.2</feature>
is automatically added to the feature list inserver.xml
. This is sensible when an application uses JSF but no feature which provides it is present inserver.xml
.However,
jsfContainer-2.2
is a feature which allows applications to provide their own implementation of the JSF specification while still using the specification interfaces. IfjsfContainer-2.2
is already specified, It isn't ideal behavior to also enablejsf-2.2
, since that would enable the implementation provided by the runtime, which I don't want. This is the current behavior.If
jsfContainer-2.2
is already specified, ThejsfContainer
implementers and I think thejsf-2.2
feature shouldn't be added automatically. Thoughts?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: