Forgot to mention ... if you do implement xmlbeans, make sure you use the nighlties cuz some critical bugs have been fixed:
http://people.apache.org/dist/axis2/nightly/ Robert http://www.braziloutsource.com/ On 7/7/06, robert lazarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't know, but you could try this tutorial that goes thru step by step how to run a wsdl with xmlbeans and generate an axis2 service: http://ws.apache.org/axis2/tools/1_0/CodegenToolReference.html See the "Invoking the Code Generator From Ant " . If in doubt just post a question to the list and maybe we can help. Robert http://www.braziloutsource.com/ On 7/7/06, Derek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The fact that Axis 1 didn't support xsd:union caused me a *LOT* of problems > because the schemas I have to work with are filled with constructs of the > form: > > <xs:simpleType name="Action_request_flag" > > <xs:annotation> > <xs:appinfo> > send actions (1) > do not send actions (2) > </xs:appinfo> > </xs:annotation> > <xs:union> > <xs:simpleType> > <xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt"> > <xs:minInclusive value="1"/> > <xs:maxInclusive value="2"/> > </xs:restriction> > </xs:simpleType> > <xs:simpleType> > <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> > <xs:enumeration value="send actions"/> > <xs:enumeration value="do not send actions"/> > </xs:restriction> > </xs:simpleType > > </xs:union> > </xs:simpleType> > > This happens for pretty much every enumeration in a very large schema. > > Since I didn't write these schemas and can't control what's in them (a > rather unresponsive standards body wrote them), I ultimately ended up having > to write an XSLT script to traverse my schema and replace all xs:unions with > equivalent constructs that didn't use unions. I don't recommend doing this > if you can possibly avoid it. > > Even if Axis were to treat a union of simple types as an untyped string, I > think it would be far better than not supporting them at all. > > I haven't tried this with Axis2 (XMLBeans) yet, so I don't know if the > situation is improved or not. I would be interested to hear if XMLBeans can > handle this case. > > Derek > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nathan Sowatskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:23 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: mTOP Reference Implementation Team > > Subject: Re: General approach for xsd:union? > > > > > > Well, that's certainly one approach, but xsd:unions are supported by > > some tools, but not others, and they are a valid construct. > > > > It is hard to argue that they shouldn't be used just because a given > > tool doesn't support them. > > > > I will look into the other options in any case. > > > > Many thanks > > > > Nathan > > > > Nathan Sowatskey - Technical Leader, NMTG CTO Engineering - > > +34-638-083-675, +34-91-201-2139 - AIM NathanCisco - > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On 7 Jul 2006, at 18:07, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > > > >>> On the other hand, is there a better way entirely? > > XMLBeans perhaps? > > > > > > Yes. Don't use <xsd:union>. > > > Try <xsd:choice> instead. > > > Or maybe a substitution group. > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > On 7/7/06, Nathan Sowatskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hi > > >> > > >> I guess we all know that xsd:union types are not supported > > for Axis > > >> 1.x, so we need to write our own de/serialisers. > > >> > > >> Does anyone have any useful guidance on how to do that please? > > >> > > >> On the other hand, is there a better way entirely? > > XMLBeans perhaps? > > >> > > >> Many thanks > > >> > > >> Nathan > > >> > > >> Nathan Sowatskey - Technical Leader, NMTG CTO Engineering - > > >> +34-638-083-675, +34-91-201-2139 - AIM NathanCisco - > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
