Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
Date: 24 Jun 2002 15:48:55 -0000
Message-ID: <20020624154855.5899.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
Cc: 
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9966]  -
    WSDL2Java Doesn't support any unsigned types.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9966>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9966

WSDL2Java Doesn't support any unsigned types.

tomj@macromedia.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |axis-dev@xml.apache.org
         AssignedTo|axis-dev@xml.apache.org     |tomj@macromedia.com


------- Additional Comments From tomj@macromedia.com  2002-06-24 15:48 -------
I was thinking of adding these in to the default type mapping.

It seems to be a choice 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?