axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ng, Charles" <Charles...@cognos.com>
Subject RE: Schema types
Date Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:11:28 GMT
I would say 1) and document the XML schema -> Java mappings.  If they don't
like the mapping then don't use unsigned types. :)  As long as it doesn't
overflow, it should work fine.

Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 5:08 PM
To: 'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'
Subject: Schema types



There is a bug outstanding (9966) that we do not support any of the unsigned
XML Schema types.  I was thinking of adding these in to the default type
mapping.

What do you think is the lesser of two evils:

1. Add the types as their signed Java counter parts. i.e. xsd:unsignedShort
would map to short, positiveInteger would map to int, etc.

2. Just leave them unsupported

Supporting them fully would enter a more complex area: We would have to emit
a Bean for these types and enforce the value restrictions in the setter
functions.  This seems like a great deal of work for just a small amount of
benefit.

Do we want to prevent users from consuming a WSDL that has some of these
simple types because we can't enforce the value restrictions?

Opinions?

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development


This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information.  If you
have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you
may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any
attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender
promptly by e-mail that you have done so.  Thank you.

Mime
View raw message