On Dec 13, 2007 10:36 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 13, 2007 7:22 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > Anthoer way you could do is to set the databinding to DOM or AXIOM. The > > databinding interceptor will pass you an array of elements corresponding > > to > > the java arguments. You can then create the wrapper from the child args > > > > when it reaches the JMS binding code. > > > > If its possible to fix this like that (by manually adding a wrapper > element) then would another way be to have a new data binding that does this > and use that in the binding. Something like a > WrappedXMLStringDataBinding.NAME which is just like the > XMLStringDataBinding.NAME but is implemented to use DOM and manually > create a wrapper around the child args? (asking to confirm I'm understanding > what you're suggesting) If thats possible it seems like it would be a > cleaner approach for binding or implementation type writers. > > If we can do that i'd also use it for implementation.script which needs > similar functionality. > > ...ant > > No replies yet so I had a quick look at doing this...
Ideally the WrappedXMLStringDataBinding would be just the same as the existing XMLStringDataBinding but that doesn't look like it would work - is it possible to have multiple databindings coexisting using the same physical type? So a question from earlier again: Why is XMLStringDataBinding producing unwrapped XML? All the uses for this that I have would use wrapped style xml so having XMLStringDataBinding produce that would be more convenient. ...ant
