On 5/1/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Simon, I'll take a look at this. It may be fairly simple to mirror what
the
Tuscany Java implementation does.

On 01/05/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4/30/07, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This is an open issue against the SDO specification. In Tuscany
SDO-Java
> > we automatically rename such duplicates: e.g., the second type would
be
> > named "Overlapping1". The next version of the spec needs to define a
> > "standard" way to handle this.
> >
> > Frank.
> >
> > "Pete Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/30/2007 09:30:34
> AM:
> >
> > > Is this a specification problem? I'm fairly sure the SDO spec states
> > that
> > > the Type name for an anonymous type is taken from the enclosing
> element.
> > In
> > > your example you have 2 types with the same name in the same
> namespace.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27/04/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I talking to a user of the PHP SDO implementatio about a problem
> they
> > have
> > > > where SDO fails to parse an XML file with the error:
> > > >
> > > > SDO_DAS_XML_ParserException  - unknown element errors...
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the code what seems to be going on is that annonymous
> types
> > are
> > > > being overwritten when the annonymous types have the same element
> > name,
> > > > for
> > > > example, If I have the schema:
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
> > > >        targetNamespace="http://www.example.org/AnnonTypes";
> > > >        xmlns:tns="http://www.example.org/AnnonTypes";
> > > > elementFormDefault="qualified">
> > > >
> > > >        <element name="Top">
> > > >          <complexType>
> > > >            <sequence>
> > > >              <element name="ElementA">
> > > >                  <complexType>
> > > >                     <sequence>
> > > >                        <element name="Overlapping">
> > > >                          <complexType>
> > > >                            <sequence>
> > > >                              <element name="ValueA"
type="string"/>
> > > >                            </sequence>
> > > >                          </complexType>
> > > >                        </element>
> > > >                     </sequence>
> > > >                  </complexType>
> > > >              </element>
> > > >              <element name="ElementB">
> > > >                  <complexType>
> > > >                     <sequence>
> > > >                        <element name="Overlapping">
> > > >                          <complexType>
> > > >                            <sequence>
> > > >                              <element name="ValueB"
type="string"/>
> > > >                            </sequence>
> > > >                          </complexType>
> > > >                        </element>
> > > >                     </sequence>
> > > >                  </complexType>
> > > >              </element>
> > > >            </sequence>
> > > >          </complexType>
> > > >        </element>
> > > > </schema>
> > > >
> > > > And the XML
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > > <tns:Top xmlns:tns="http://www.example.org/AnnonTypes";
> > > >         xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
> > > >         xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.example.org/AnnonTypes
> > > > AnnonTypes.xsd ">
> > > > <tns:ElementA>
> > > >    <tns:Overlapping>
> > > >      <tns:ValueA>tns:ValueA</tns:ValueA>
> > > >    </tns:Overlapping>
> > > > </tns:ElementA>
> > > > <tns:ElementB>
> > > >    <tns:Overlapping>
> > > >      <tns:ValueB>tns:ValueB</tns:ValueB>
> > > >    </tns:Overlapping>
> > > > </tns:ElementB>
> > > > </tns:Top>
> > > >
> > > > I looked to see if this had been raised as a bug and It didn't
look
> > like
> > > > it
> > > > had. I'll go and do that but was just wondering if that was by
> design
> > for
> > > > some reason? To fix this we would have to construct a scoping
> > mechanism
> > > > for
> > > > annonymous types based on the context in which they appear.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Ok thanks Frank/Pete. I checked the C++ spec and it does just say that
> the
> name of the annonymous type is the same as the name of the enclosing
> element
> declaration. So it's working as specified but we need to fix the
spec.  I
> recorded this as TUSCANY-1238 lest we forget.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>



--
Pete

Ok, thanks Pete.

Simon

Reply via email to