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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 5:08 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' 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.
