If I remember correctly, we set the databinding to be java:complexType or
java:simpleType. For some of the transformations, we treat them as JAXB, for
example POJO --> XML or POJO --> JSON.
Thanks,
Raymond
________________________________________________________________
Raymond Feng
rf...@apache.org
Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com
Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com
________________________________________________________________
On Sep 13, 2011, at 7:51 AM, Simon Laws wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> How should the databinding be configured for a non-JAXB Java bean?
>>
>> Currently in 2.x I'm seeing that the data type that gets generated
>> does have a databinding set to java:complexType but the logical type
>> is set to the default XMLType, i.e. it has a null element name and a
>> null XSD type. In the DefaultDataBindingExtensionPoint I seem the
>> following code and comment:
>>
>> public boolean introspectType(DataType dataType, Operation operation) {
>> loadDataBindings();
>> for (DataBinding binding : databindings) {
>> // don't introspect for JavaBeansDatabinding as all javatypes will
>> // anyways match to its basetype
>> // which is java.lang.Object. Default to this only if no
>> databinding
>> // results
>> if (!binding.getName().equals(JavaBeansDataBinding.NAME)) {
>> if (binding.introspect(dataType, operation)) {
>> return true;
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> It's not clear what the default databinding should be set to in the
>> case of a Java bean. xsd:any? This is currently causes the properties
>> itest to fail a it complains about missing types in the model. I'll
>> take a look and see what we did in 1.x as I believe the properties
>> test ran clean there but if anyone knows then that would be useful
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> --
>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
>>
>
> Well in 1.x we didn't set a type either but we seemingly didn't check
> for it so it doesn't get raised as an error. The OASIS code is a bot
> more particular.
>
> It seems we don't try to fluff up and XSD type for plain Java beans.
> Not even a default JAXB mapping. It seems that this is by design. Is
> anyone able to explain before I change anything?
>
> Simon
>
> --
> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
