# Root

## Overview

The Root area appears to be a namespace-level overview of the application’s web integration surface rather than a feature module with its own business logic. Based on the child documentation, the codebase is organized around a small set of boundary packages that connect Java code to the servlet container and to view-layer configuration:

- `com.fujitsu` provides the Futurity application’s container-facing web hooks.
- `eo.web` provides a screen/flow-oriented webview integration layer.
- `javax.faces` provides the JSF servlet entry point used by the web tier.

Taken together, these packages suggest a layered web architecture where request handling, view wiring, and JSF container integration are kept separate. The Root area therefore looks like the place to understand how the application is exposed to the web runtime, not where core domain behavior is implemented.

## Sub-module Guide

### `com.fujitsu`

[`com.fujitsu`](com/fujitsu.md) appears to be the top-level package for the Futurity application’s web integration boundary. Its child documentation describes a `futurity` area that centers on a `web` module with two complementary concerns:

- a `filter` that intercepts incoming requests, and
- a `listener` that reacts to application lifecycle events.

Those roles are related but distinct. The filter sits in the request path and can shape or observe traffic as it enters the application. The listener sits at the container lifecycle boundary and handles startup/shutdown style events. This means `com.fujitsu` is not just a package namespace; it is the outer shell where servlet-container behavior is attached to the application.

### `eo.web`

[`eo.web`](eo/web.md) appears to be a web-facing area for named UI flows. Its child module, `webview`, documents a specific flow called `ACA001SF`, which is split into:

- `ACA001SFBean` for view state, and
- `ACA001SFLogic` for the framework entry point.

The relationship here is more of a wiring contract than a general-purpose library. The bean carries the state that the JSP needs, while the logic class provides the action hook that the web framework invokes. The associated XML and JSP artifacts show that `eo.web` depends on tight coordination between Java types and external configuration. In other words, this package appears to define a screen-level contract that the surrounding web stack consumes.

### `javax.faces`

[`javax.faces`](javax/faces.md) appears to be the JSF namespace boundary. Its documented child package, `javax.faces.webapp`, provides the servlet-facing `FacesServlet`, which is referenced by deployment configuration. That makes this area the integration point where JSF is introduced into the servlet container.

Unlike `eo.web`, which is tied to a specific screen flow, and `com.fujitsu`, which exposes application-specific web hooks, `javax.faces` is a framework namespace. It supplies the type that the container loads and dispatches to, rather than implementing application behavior itself.

### How the sub-modules relate

The three child areas occupy different positions in the web stack:

- `javax.faces` defines the framework entry point for JSF request handling.
- `com.fujitsu` defines application-specific servlet hooks such as request filtering and lifecycle listening.
- `eo.web` defines screen-level flow wiring that connects Java beans and logic classes to XML and JSP artifacts.

This appears to indicate a separation of concerns across three layers:

1. **Framework integration** through `javax.faces`.
2. **Application boundary hooks** through `com.fujitsu`.
3. **View-flow orchestration** through `eo.web`.

The result is a web application that depends on explicit configuration and naming conventions to connect container behavior, request processing, and presentation.

## Key Patterns and Architecture

### Boundary-oriented design

A recurring pattern across the child pages is that each package sits at an integration boundary rather than owning deep business logic. The modules are responsible for making the application visible to the container and to the web framework:

- servlet filters and listeners manage edge behavior,
- JSF servlet wiring exposes the framework entry point,
- view beans and logic classes tie Java code to JSP and XML assets.

This suggests the codebase favors clear handoff points over centralized orchestration.

### Configuration-driven wiring

The child documentation repeatedly references deployment descriptors and view configuration files such as `web-full.xml`, `WEBGAMEN_FULL_ACA001.xml`, and `FULL_ACA001010PJP.jsp`. That implies runtime behavior is assembled through configuration, not just through code discovery.

For developers, that means changes in this area often require checking more than one artifact:

- a Java class,
- the XML that binds it,
- and the JSP or other presentation file that consumes it.

### Separation of runtime concerns

The modules separate three distinct runtime concerns:

- **request interception** in `com.fujitsu`
- **screen flow execution** in `eo.web`
- **framework dispatch** in `javax.faces`

This separation reduces coupling between container events, user-facing flows, and framework-specific lifecycle management. It also makes each concern easier to reason about because the same package is not trying to own all three responsibilities.

### Thin integration surfaces

The available evidence shows relatively little implementation detail inside these packages. That suggests the code is intentionally thin and relies on the surrounding stack for most behavior. The packages appear to exist to reserve the correct integration points and keep the application wired into the expected runtime conventions.

## Dependencies and Integration

### External dependencies

From the child pages, the main visible external dependency is the Servlet/JSF web runtime:

- `javax.faces.webapp` exposes `FacesServlet` for JSF request handling.
- `com.fujitsu` depends on servlet filter and lifecycle mechanisms.
- `eo.web` depends on XML and JSP artifacts for flow activation and rendering.

The documentation does not show a broad internal dependency graph, so the safest conclusion is that the root area integrates outward through the container and presentation layer rather than inward through shared services.

### Integration flow

A likely high-level flow is:

1. The servlet container starts the web application.
2. `web-full.xml` and related descriptors register framework and application hooks.
3. `FacesServlet` handles JSF-driven requests.
4. Application filters and listeners in `com.fujitsu` observe or shape request and lifecycle behavior.
5. Screen-specific flow wiring in `eo.web` binds beans and logic classes to JSPs.

This appears to be the connective tissue of the system: a combination of container configuration, framework entry points, and screen-level contracts.

### What is not visible

No direct package dependencies, source-file indexes, or cross-module relationships were resolved for the Root module itself. That means this overview should be read as a synthesized map of the visible integration surface, not as proof of every runtime path in the full application.

## Mermaid Diagram

```mermaid
flowchart TD
RootModule["Root"] --> ComFujitsu["com.fujitsu"]
RootModule["Root"] --> EoWeb["eo.web"]
RootModule["Root"] --> JavaxFaces["javax.faces"]
ComFujitsu --> FuturityModule["com.fujitsu.futurity"]
FuturityModule --> WebModule["web"]
WebModule --> FilterModule["filter"]
WebModule --> ListenerModule["listener"]
EoWeb --> WebviewModule["webview"]
WebviewModule --> ACA001SF["ACA001SF"]
ACA001SF --> ACA001SFBean["ACA001SFBean"]
ACA001SF --> ACA001SFLogic["ACA001SFLogic"]
JavaxFaces --> WebappModule["javax.faces.webapp"]
WebappModule --> FacesServlet["FacesServlet"]
WebModule --> WebFullXml["web-full.xml"]
WebFullXml --> FacesServlet
WebModule --> FullAcaXml["WEBGAMEN_FULL_ACA001.xml"]
FullAcaXml --> ACA001SFLogic
WebModule --> FullAcaJsp["FULL_ACA001010PJP.jsp"]
FullAcaJsp --> ACA001SFBean
```

## Notes for Developers

- Treat these packages as integration boundaries first; they are likely more sensitive to wiring than to local code structure.
- When changing `eo.web`, verify both the XML binding and the JSP consumer so the screen flow stays synchronized.
- When changing `com.fujitsu`, remember that filter behavior and lifecycle behavior serve different runtime phases and should remain separate.
- When changing `javax.faces`, check `web-full.xml` because that is the visible anchor for JSF servlet registration.
- If behavior appears missing, inspect configuration before assuming the Java classes are not being called.

## Summary

The Root area ties together three distinct web-facing concerns: JSF framework entry points in `javax.faces`, application-specific servlet hooks in `com.fujitsu`, and screen-flow wiring in `eo.web`. This appears to be a deliberately layered setup that uses configuration and naming conventions to connect the servlet container, the framework, and the UI layer.