You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Paul Nicolucci <pn...@us.ibm.com> on 2018/04/02 18:38:30 UTC
javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_PORT discussion
Hi,
I've been doing some reviews of our implementation and I noticed that we
have the following context parameter: javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_PORT which is
used by the ServletExternalContextImpl.encodeWebsocketURL().
However, looking over the JSF 2.3 spec documentation I see the following
parameter specified on page 10-25:
In case your server is configured to run a WebSocket container on a
different TCP port than the HTTP
container, then you can use the optional
javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_ENDPOINT_PORT integer context
parameter in web.xml to explicitly specify the port.
We need to decide the following:
1) Allow either parameter and add support for the missing
javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_ENDPOINT_PORT in MyFaces
2) Rename our parameter to the spec defined one ( could potentially break
any apps that are already using the non spec defined parameter in 2.3.0).
I think #1 is our safest bet but wanted to get some additional input if
anyone had it.
Thanks,
Paul Nicolucci
Re: javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_PORT discussion
Posted by Paul Nicolucci <pn...@us.ibm.com>.
I'll implement proposal #2 here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-4216
From: Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>
To: MyFaces Development <de...@myfaces.apache.org>
Date: 04/02/2018 04:58 PM
Subject: Re: javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_PORT discussion
+1 for 2
2018-04-02 15:13 GMT-05:00 Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>:
+1 for 2
2.3.0 is very new and everyone knows that a x.0 release isnt stable for
100%.
Am Montag, 2. April 2018 schrieb Paul Nicolucci :
Hi,
I've been doing some reviews of our implementation and I noticed that we
have the following context parameter: javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_PORT which
is used by the ServletExternalContextImpl.encodeWebsocketURL().
However, looking over the JSF 2.3 spec documentation I see the following
parameter specified on page 10-25:
In case your server is configured to run a WebSocket container on a
different TCP port than the HTTP
container, then you can use the optional
javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_ENDPOINT_PORT integer context
parameter in web.xml to explicitly specify the port.
We need to decide the following:
1) Allow either parameter and add support for the missing
javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_ENDPOINT_PORT in MyFaces
2) Rename our parameter to the spec defined one ( could potentially
break any apps that are already using the non spec defined parameter in
2.3.0).
I think #1 is our safest bet but wanted to get some additional input if
anyone had it.
Thanks,
Paul Nicolucci
Re: javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_PORT discussion
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 2
2018-04-02 15:13 GMT-05:00 Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>:
> +1 for 2
>
> 2.3.0 is very new and everyone knows that a x.0 release isnt stable for
> 100%.
>
>
> Am Montag, 2. April 2018 schrieb Paul Nicolucci :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been doing some reviews of our implementation and I noticed that we
>> have the following context parameter: javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_PORT which is
>> used by the ServletExternalContextImpl.encodeWebsocketURL().
>>
>> However, looking over the JSF 2.3 spec documentation I see the following
>> parameter specified on page 10-25:
>>
>> In case your server is configured to run a WebSocket container on a
>> different TCP port than the HTTP
>> container, then you can use the optional *javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_ENDPOINT_PORT
>> *integer context
>> parameter in web.xml to explicitly specify the port.
>>
>> *We need to decide the following:*
>>
>> 1) Allow either parameter and add support for the missing
>> javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_ENDPOINT_PORT in MyFaces
>> 2) Rename our parameter to the spec defined one ( could potentially break
>> any apps that are already using the non spec defined parameter in 2.3.0).
>>
>> I think #1 is our safest bet but wanted to get some additional input if
>> anyone had it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paul Nicolucci
>>
>
Re: javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_PORT discussion
Posted by Thomas Andraschko <an...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 2
2.3.0 is very new and everyone knows that a x.0 release isnt stable for
100%.
Am Montag, 2. April 2018 schrieb Paul Nicolucci :
> Hi,
>
> I've been doing some reviews of our implementation and I noticed that we
> have the following context parameter: javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_PORT which is
> used by the ServletExternalContextImpl.encodeWebsocketURL().
>
> However, looking over the JSF 2.3 spec documentation I see the following
> parameter specified on page 10-25:
>
> In case your server is configured to run a WebSocket container on a
> different TCP port than the HTTP
> container, then you can use the optional *javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_ENDPOINT_PORT
> *integer context
> parameter in web.xml to explicitly specify the port.
>
> *We need to decide the following:*
>
> 1) Allow either parameter and add support for the missing
> javax.faces.WEBSOCKET_ENDPOINT_PORT in MyFaces
> 2) Rename our parameter to the spec defined one ( could potentially break
> any apps that are already using the non spec defined parameter in 2.3.0).
>
> I think #1 is our safest bet but wanted to get some additional input if
> anyone had it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Nicolucci
>