I was able to successfully do the binding with castor-0.9.5.3 for the
following bind rule.
<mapping xmlns="http://castor.exolab.org/"
xmlns:cst="http://castor.exolab.org/">
<description>Castor generated mapping file</description>
<class cst:name="DBModel">
<description>Default mapping for class
DBModel</description>
<map-to cst:xml="DBModel"/>
<field cst:name="name" cst:type="java.lang.String">
<bind-xml name="name" node="attribute"/>
</field>
<field cst:name="type" cst:type="java.lang.String">
<bind-xml name="type" node="attribute"/>
</field>
<field cst:name="DBTables" cst:type="java.lang.Object"
cst:collection="map">
<bind-xml name="DBTable" node="element"/>
</field>
</class>
<class cst:name="DBTable">
<description>Default mapping for class
DBTable</description>
<map-to cst:xml="DBTable"/>
<field cst:name="name" cst:type="java.lang.String">
<bind-xml name="name" node="attribute"/>
</field>
<field cst:name="DBColumns" cst:type="java.lang.Object"
cst:collection="map">
<bind-xml name="DBColumn" node="element"/>
</field>
<field cst:name="attributes" cst:type="java.lang.Object"
cst:collection="map">
<bind-xml name="prop" node="element"/>
</field>
</class>
</mapping>
But with an older version I get following exception
org.exolab.castor.mapping.MappingException: Nested error:
org.xml.sax.SAXException: unable to find FieldDescriptor for 'class' in
ClassDescriptor of bind-xml
Is there something am missing with older versions. Since ours is a
integration suite, pretty hard to use multiple versions of the castor
library. Can any one shed some light on this ?
Thanks
Sudhi
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Visco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 1:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [castor-user] Binding an element to nothing
Hi Michael,
Try the following:
unmarshaller.setIgnoreExtraElements(true);
--Keith
Michael Goodwin wrote:
>
> Hi, I haven't been able to work out how to do this. If I want to drop
a
> field from my Java class, but already have marshalled xml versions of
it,
> with this field present. How can I read all the other data in,
ignoring
> this one field as the new class. If I could bind it to 'nothing' then
this
> would work. For me the advantage of Castor over straight serialisation
is
> that the data shouldn't become unreadable if modifications are made to
the
> classes (although certainly you can add fields).
>
> thanks, Mike.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
> unsubscribe castor-user
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-user
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-user