From: Glen Daniels
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002
6:12 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: Default
type mapping (another attempt)
Hi
Igor!
If
there is a clean and logical way to do "deployment free" typemappings, with
the und
roperable java: namespace mapping we settle on
with GLUE + WASP).
--Glen
-Original Message-From: Sedukhin, Igor
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:32
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Default type
mapping (another attempt)
Glen, so then if we cha
(631) 342-4325
..
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
-Original Message-
From: Sedukhin, Igor
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:32 AM
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Default type mapping (anotherattempt)
Glen,
ukhin .. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --
(631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia,
NY 11788
-Original Message-From: Sedukhin, Igor
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:32 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Default type mapping (another
attempt)
Glen, so then if we change it to , then d
-From: Glen Daniels
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002
10:00 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE:
Default type mapping (another attempt)
-1
I
don't think this is the right solution to this.
IMO,
we shouldn't map java typ
Title: Default type mapping (another attempt)
-1
I
don't think this is the right solution to this.
IMO,
we shouldn't map java types to individual namespaces per package, but if we want
a "deployment-free" typemapping (i.e. one where the QName of the type gives us
enough info to figure ou
