Yes, the problem is resolved if I remove the abstract mapping for AnotherInterface and change the mapping for AnotherInterfaceImpl to not extend AnotherInterface. That's better, at least I can use a structure for AnInterfaceImpl.anotherInterface instead of a collection. Curiously, I didn't need to remove the empty mapping for AnInterface. So empty mappings seem OK as long as you don't have more than one of them. It would be nice to be able to define the abstract mapping so that the binding file is more clear, but I can live with not defining it if I have to. Thanks, David Dennis Sosnoski wrote: >I can see where empty mappings, as you"ve used in your binding, might be >a problem. I don"t think there"s any reason you need to include them, >though - what happens if you remove the empty <mapping> definitions for
>your interfaces and the corresponding extends="..." attributes on the >other mappings (while leaving your code the same)? > > - Dennis ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: 2005 Windows Mobile Application Contest Submit applications for Windows Mobile(tm)-based Pocket PCs or Smartphones for the chance to win $25,000 and application distribution. Enter today at http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idh82&alloc_id148&op=click _______________________________________________ jibx-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jibx-users
