I wonder if the XML Schema is really invalid. I didn't find anything in
the spec on "Valid Element XML Schema representation" that would make
the declaration invalid.
The type definition is defined as:
"The type definition corresponding to the <simpleType> or <complexType>
element information item in the [children], if either is present,
otherwise the type definition .resolved. to by the .actual value. of the
type [attribute], otherwise the {type definition} of the element
declaration .resolved. to by the .actual value. of the substitutionGroup
[attribute], if present, otherwise the .ur-type definition.."
Which means that the type is the ur-type (default type).
However in Castor we decided to generate the following:
Value _value;
To allow people to use their own classes in the marshalling framework in
combination with sources generated by Castor, changing that behavior
will break the backward compatibility. However we should treat the case
of the AnyType and provide the ability to generate
Object _value = null;
That latest code could be the default mode.
Seems a good enhancement request.
Arnaud
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Hiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 8:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [castor-dev] Element of complex type without type=...
correct ?
I believe according the XSD specification, you must have the pair
name="xx" type="xx" or
the single ref="xx" .
You cannot have name="" without a type. ie. the schema is wrong.
Dean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am interested in hearing what experts have to say about the issue
addressed in
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg15727.html
I am facing a similar issue but haven't seen any further discussion on
this anywhere.
Thanks,
Asif
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
