Yes Pete, you are correct. The XML schema sequence concept fixes the order of elements in that sequence. The SDO Sequence concept is there to preserve the instance ordering of elements when the metadata does not fix it.
Regards, Kelvin. On 03/08/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A Jira (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1504) has been > raised against the SDO C++ implementation which is saying that for a > schema: > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; > xmlns:letter="http://letterSchema"; > targetNamespace="http://letterSchema";> > <xs:element name="letters" type="FormLetter"/> > <xs:complexType name="FormLetter"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element name="date" type="xs:string"/> > <xs:element name="firstName" type="xs:string"/> > <xs:element name="lastName" type="xs:string"/> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:complexType> > </xs:schema> > > the complex type "http://letterSchema#FormLetter"; is not "sequenced" > in SDO terms. I believe this is correct as the SDO use of the term > "sequenced" is related to the order of the setting of the properties > and in the above case maxOccurs=1 on the sequence and each of the > contained elements.This means an instance of a FormLetter DataObject > returns NULL for getSequence() in our implementation. > > So... is my interpretation of the spec correct? > > Cheers, > > -- > Pete > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
