I'm not sure if this is related, but I just hit another issue where a
class isn't being generated, and instead the parent class is using
String as the type for the field that has the missing class.
Schema looks like this:
...
<xsd:complexType name="MessageType">
<xsd:simpleContent>
<xsd:extension base = "MessageSimpleType"/>
</xsd:simpleContent>
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:simpleType name="MessageSimpleType">
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
<xsd:enumeration value="type1"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="type2"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="some"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="other"/>
<xsd:enumeration value="values"/>
...
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
...
In castor 0.9.5.2 it resulted in the following code:
...
public class MessageType implements java.io.Serializable {
...
private mypackage.types.MessageSimpleType _content;
...
}
In castor 0.9.9 it results in the following code:
...
public class MessageType implements java.io.Serializable {
...
private java.lang.String _content = "";
...
}
On 10/14/05, Stephen Dennison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I built from cvs, unless there's another branch (I checked out from
> the head) it wasn't fixed for my issue.
>
> On 10/14/05, Ralf Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > some other users have pointed us to this problem before that had been
> > included in the 0.9.9 release of castor. As far as I know this is fixed
> > in CVS and we intend to build a new bugfix release till end of this
> > month. You may want to have a look at issues 1152, 1153 and 1216 which
> > had recently been resolved.
> >
> > Having said that we would appreciate if you could test the CVS version
> > to verify if your problem is also fixed.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ralf
> >
> >
> > Stephen Dennison schrieb:
> > > This was a tough one to explain, so if the following isn't clear, feel
> > > free to ask me to elucidate further.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have a schema that has a simpleType that contains an attribute that
> > > has a ref to an attribute group. In castor 0.9.5.2 this resulted in
> > > code being generated for the attribute as though it were a simpletype,
> > > but in castor 0.9.9 it just calls the field an Object and doesn't
> > > generate code for it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's an example of the setup:
> > > I have one schema that contains something like this:
> > > ...
> > > <xsd:attributeGroup name="someStuff">
> > > <xsd:attribute ref="classification" use="required"/>
> > > <xsd:attribute ref="markings" use="optional"/>
> > > </xsd:attributeGroup>
> > > <xsd:attribute name="classification>
> > > <xsd:simpleType>
> > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
> > > <xsd:enumeration value="one"/>
> > > <xsd:enumeration value="two"/>
> > > <xsd:enumeration value="three"/>
> > > </xsd:restriction>
> > > </xsd:simpleType>
> > > </xsd:attribute>
> > > <xsd:attribute name="markings">
> > > ...
> > > </xsd:attribute>
> > > ...
> > >
> > > And I have another schema that has something like this:
> > > ...
> > > <xsd:complexType name="someComplexType">
> > > <xsd:attributeGroup ref="theCorrectNS:someStuff"/>
> > > </xsd:complexType>
> > > ...
> > >
> > > So, in the 0.9.5.2, A class was generated for
> > > someComplextTypeSomeStuffType that would allow the values one, two, or
> > > three where one was defined as a static
> > > someComplextTypeStuffType("one"), two was a static
> > > someComplextTypeStuffType("two"), etc. (not sure of the actual
> > > case/capitalization here, but you get the idea)
> > > This class was referenced by the someComplextType class. like this:
> > > ...
> > > public class someComplexType implements java.io.Serializable{
> > > ...
> > > someComplexTypeSomeStuff _classficiation;
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > In castor 0.9.9, the same class looks like this:
> > > ...
> > > public class someComplexType implements java.io.Serializable{
> > > ...
> > > java.lang.Object _classification;
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > For now, I can get a compatible class generated if I make simpleTypes
> > > that restrict base type xsd:string, name them what I expect should
> > > have been generated, put my enumerated values in them, and manually
> > > add all of the attributes to someComplexType. The problem with this
> > > is that I have to locate every place where we are using an attribute
> > > group and manually build the simple types by inspecting all of the
> > > schemas that we include.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So, is this a bug, or is there a setting somewhere that I don't know
> > > about that I need to turn on, or a syntax fix that I need, in order to
> > > get backwards-compatible classes generated?
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please
> > > send an empty message to the following address:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > -------------------------------------------------
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please
> > send an empty message to the following address:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please
send an empty message to the following address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------
