Does that mean you're going to have
<blah ...>
<results ...>
<listOfA>
<instanceOfA />
</listOfA>
<listOfB>
<instanceOfB />
</listOfB>
...
</results>
</blah>
or:
<blah ...>
<results ...>
<listOfA>
<instanceOfA />
</listOfA>
</results>
</blah>
<blah ...>
<results ...>
<listOfB>
<instanceOfB />
</listOfB>
</results>
</blah>
...?
Steve
On 9 Jan 2007, at 12:56, Sandeep wrote:
Slight clarification from my side:
Every xml instance looks like:
<blah ...>
<results ...>
<listOfA>
<instanceOfA />*
</listOfA>
</results>
</blah>
Now "listOf<?>" is there for all xml to return a list of element
called <?>
So, in effect by following the same xml structure you can get a list
of Cars, Chocolates, Rivers whatever. There is no relation among the
objects (i.e. <?>).
Now, if I define a schema for A and B and run Sourcecodegenerator,
classes like "blah" and "results" get generated multiple times!!
How do I solve this, any idea, anybody?
~Sandeep
On 1/9/07, Stephen Winnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sandeep
I'm not an expert on XML Schema as such, but I thought it had some
sort of inheritance so you could define a schema for the following
sort of structures:
<blah ...>
<results ...>
<list>
<abstactInstanceOfAorBorC />*
</list>
</results>
</blah>
and then specify that <instanceOfA> is-a <abstractInstanceOfAorBorC>.
There's an introduction to this sort of thing at http://
www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-flexschema .
However, I don't know if the SourceGenerator can handle that sort of
thing.
Steve
On 9 Jan 2007, at 11:11, Sandeep wrote:
> Thanks Steve!
>
> Let me tell you my venture into mapping.xml.
>
> This is the product I am working for: diff. modules of this product
> exchange information by passing raw xml over http (legacy stuff, no
> open standards followed). I am trying to bring in Castor for data
> binding:-)
>
> The xml structure for any object "A" looks somewhat like this:
> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8' ?>
> <!DOCTYPE blah SYSTEM 'http://10.72.181.103:8088/server.dtd'>
> <blah version='1.0' xmlns='http://www.blah.com/xml'>
> <results passes="true">
> <A>
> <instanceOfA>
> </instanceOfA>
> <instanceOfA>
> </instanceOfA>
> ....
> </A>
> </results>
> </blah>
>
> Now this is the problem. I have to write schemas for 100s of
different
> objects like A.
> But then all the schemas will begin with blah and results and
then the
> actual "meat".
>
> So, I decided to go for mapping (and thanks to its location
attribute)
> like the below:
> <mapping>
> <class name="CollectionOfA" auto-complete="true">
> <map-to xml="blah" />
> <field name="listOfA" collection="arraylist"
type="BeanOfA" >
> <bind-xml name="instanceOfA"
location="results/A" />
> </field>
> </class>
> <class name="BeanOfA" auto-complete="true">
> .....and all the properties of A goes here
> </class>
> </mapping>
>
> Do you see any solution for defining schemas for all those beans
where
> every xml has those blah/results to begin with?
>
> ~Sandeep
>
>
> On 1/9/07, Stephen Winnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that working from an XML schema is to be preferred if you
>> have that option. The advantages are
>>
>> 1) you can do a good design for your XML;
>> 2) you can reuse any standards which might be available.
>>
>> Since data tends to hang around much longer than programs (and get
>> processed by more than one language), I'd spend more time
making sure
>> the data was as well organised as possible.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 9 Jan 2007, at 10:33, Sandeep wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Which is better:
>> > 1. Define a schema for a java bean, auto-generate the source
>> code and
>> > get the validation done by castor while populating the bean from
>> a xml
>> > instance.
>> >
>> > 2. Hand code the java bean. Define a mapping file. Populate the
>> java
>> > bean from a xml instance through castor. I don't think I need to
>> > define a schema here (correct me, if I am wrong)
>> >
>> > Advantage for 1) is validation of data types and values can be
>> > performed by castor.
>> > Advantages for 2) are flexibility to add application specific
>> helper
>> > methods to the bean, or when you cannot touch the source for
the
>> > bean.
>> >
>> > Obviously, advantage of one is the disadvantage for the other.
>> >
>> > So, how can I get the best of both worlds? I want to hand code
>> my bean
>> > class (not use SourceCodegenerator). I want to define the schema
>> apart
>> > from the mapping so that castor can validate the xml instance
>> against
>> > the schema for both data types and some values.
>> >
>> >
>> > TIA
>> >
>> > ~Sandeep
>> >
>> >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>> >
>> > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>> >
>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>>
>> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
