Hello Arnaud, my experience is completely different. I have been working with several XML Schema files where unsigned types of all kinds were used exhaustively, and often in places where there was no real reason to restrict the values to non-negative; I ascribe this to the habits of some C programmers in the teams specifying the schema.
So I'd offer as a first step to try with the unsignedInt,short,byte mapping and leave unsignedLong for further discussion. Which I open below ... Is there anyone whom I can contact to check if my modifications are ok? You? I am a newbie to open source programming, but I know the reactions of teammates when you break the code ... I understand your argumentation concerning unsignedLong - you do not want to go back behind the XML Schema spec. But I would dare mapping unsignedLong onto long despite of the non-literal mapping of the Schema spec for the following reasons: - the use of a mapping still cannot solve the problem that you just cannot store integer values > Long.MAX properly in Java - I think that long values in the range of Long.MAX+1 up to the XML Schema maximum will occur even less frequently than the usage of unsignedLong at all - off-the-shelf usability of Castor is an important argument to augment the audience. This comes from my experience again - I find it in most cases extremely difficult to convince people to use tools they have not used before, and argumentation is remarkably easier if a tool produces good results without the need for reconfiguration. Regards, Annette -- Dr. Annette S�ndermann Zenturion GmbH Postfach 1248, 85730 Ismaning Tel.: 089/638 76 706 Fax: 089/638 76 707 Internet: http://www.zenturion.de ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
