I have been able to generate usable code both by using the
no_process_includes parameter and by raising the limit. My only concern is
to confirm that in both cases the generated code will behave in the same
way. I would also be interested to understand why the generated code is
different but that is just curiosity. :) As you may have picked up I am not
very familiar with the XML Schema, this is the first time I'm working
seriously with it.
Thanks for your help
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Dave Kuhlman <dkuhl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > From: Daniel Browne
> >Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 8:14 AM
> >
> > I've changed the hard coded limit mentioned previously to 10000.
> > Looking at the generated files, I have noticed that the hacked and
> > normal files differ in the following way.
> >
> > In the xsd file, there a several sections structured in the
> > following manner:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > The thing to note is that all these complexType elements like
> > "ListCommonDeviceConfigReq" have the same sub-element called
> > "searchCriteria" which in turn contains an anonymous complexType.
> > In the "hacked" output file (using process_includes), there 135
> > classes called "searchCriteriaTypeX" (X is 1->135). The classes
> > representing the enclosing tags each have their own searchCriteria
> > class. In the "no_process_includes" version of the output file,
> > there is only one SearchCriteria class which is referred to in each
> > of the classes representing the enclosing tags.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> Daniel -
>
> And, thank you. You've really done some extensive analysis. I
> appreciate it.
>
> Hopefully, I'll have some time to look at it this weekend.
>
> In the meantime, were you able to produce something useable? Did
> raising that limit enable you to generate usable code? Or, is there
> still a problem, even after raising that limit to 10,000?
>
> Thanks again for taking the time to dig into this and to report it
> in detail. Hopefully, we can get something usable for you.
> Although, having that many anonymous types does seem like a very
> "special" case. But, then XML Schema is very often special and
> very strange.
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Dave Kuhlman
> http://www.rexx.com/~dkuhlman
>
--
<http://www.voss-solutions.com/>
*
Daniel Browne
*
Developer / Design Lead
VOSS Development
Mobile: +27 (0) 79 293 2044
daniel.bro...@voss-solutions.com
<https://twitter.com/voss_solutions> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/voss>
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/VOSS-Solutions/254816747898652?sk=wall>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct
_______________________________________________
generateds-users mailing list
generateds-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/generateds-users
