Hi Everyone,
I created Java code from an xsd file using the CodeGen tool. The problem
is, that the schema defined in the xsd is needlessly complex and so it
is a real pain to use the generated classes (especially the class
ElementType from the binding listed later). So I decided to write a
custom
Hi Aurelijus,
This test for one or more mapping elements for modifiable classes was
something I had in earlier versions of the code to catch cases where
users were creating bindings which wouldn't work. With the use of
abstract mappings in Axis2 and such there are now cases where it's
valid
I want to remap some built-in structures to improve maintenance of mine
bindings collection. After some readings on JiBX tutorial and forums i found
options how to solve this task. So, i selected one binding file from mine
bindings collection and started refactoring it. I created abstract mappings
Hello,
I have a problem (again) with a abstract mapping and namespace (prefixes).
I have three classes ClassA, ClassB and ClassCommon.
The classes ClassA and ClassB are using the ClassCommon:
class ClassA {
ClassCommon prop = new ClassCommon();
...
}
class ClassB {
ClassCommon prop = new
No, it's not possible to use an abstract mapping when you want to insert
elements into the middle of the structure defined by the abstract
mapping. In the case where your structure is just a sequence of elements
it would be possible to use two abstract mappings - one for the
structure
Hi,
I would like to use abstract mapping to map the inheritance structure of
the following classes:
class Vehicle {
private String name;
private double fuelLoad;
}
class AirVehicle extends Vehicle {
}
class TrackVehicle extends Vehicle {
private int turnRadius;
}
When using abstract
Hi Henri,
The JiBX implementation of this gives flexibility at the cost of
requiring that structure map-as=base-class/ in order to invoke the
base mapping. The flexibility is that you can control where the base
mapping is invoked - or even if it's invoked at all. The alternative
would
I changed some of our mapping to make usage of the abstract
capability of jibx.
So I have an abstract class and an abstract mapping
mapping abstract=true class=com.actualis.ActualisBO
!-- com.actualis.ActualisBO fields --
value name=sync_state field=sync_state/
value name=UID
The current handling in the code is actually more flexible than the
description states. You might be able to use two levels of abstract
mapping in the case you describe. All I can suggest is you try it to see
if it works for your case.
I'm trying to clean this up and make it much more flexible
Sorry, I've been bogged down with other issues and projects. I'll try to
get to this tomorrow.
- Dennis
Anibal Rego-Dacal wrote:
Since I did not hear anything more from you,
I wanted to ask if you could achieve something.
Thanks
Anibal
---
10 matches
Mail list logo
