I agree with Henk that the use of the location attribute in your case should be preferable, hence avoiding the need for a container class <Visit> just to hold the collection.
Werner > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Henk van Voorthuijsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. März 2007 08:25 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [castor-user] collection-var name misinterpreted as > collection-element type; hence 'occurs more than once'; etc. > > > > > That is, I now think that marshalling a Collection (in this case, > > addVisitDatas) in such a way as to wrap sets of the members of the > > Collection's element-type (in this case, AddVisitData) in an XML- > > element > > named with the name of the Collection-variable (addVisitDatas) is > > preferable > > to what one gets when one includes "container='false'", which wraps > > such > > Collection-element data in an XML-element named with the Collection > > element's type (AddVisitData). > > > > I now think that's actually more efficient, in that it saves on XML- > > elements > > in the way it deals with the effectively anonymous Collection- > > elements. > > You might also want to have a look at the "location" attribute: > http://castor.codehaus.org/xml-mapping.html#6.-Location-attribute > > Henk van Voorthuijsen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
