Hi Kurt, Kurt Sorge wrote: > Werner, > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> Kurt Sorge wrote: >>> Hello All, >>> >>> I am trying to generate my source from a schema that includes >>> another schema using . The problem is that the original schema is >>> getting generated, then the include statement is triggering the >>> schema to get generated again. >> Just to get things as they are: you have got An XML schema A that >> includes B which itself happens to be including A again. > No A is included in B and I don't have a circular dependency. A gets > generated first and then when B gets generated, the source generator > wants to generate A again since it is included by B. In other words, you call the source generator for all XML schema files, right ? If that's the case, let me ask you on more question. Is there a 'root' XML schema which is not included by any other XML schema, but does itself include all the others (whether directly or transitive) ?
>>> This would not be such a big deal, but when the second pass on >>> the schema tries to generate the class again, the generator >>> pompts for overwriting the first generation of the class. If I >>> tried to make this part of our continuous build system, it would >>> fall flat on it's face. Is there a way to automate my response >>> and log the warning? >> Yes, there is, but let's first make sure that I am getting the >> problem right. >>> I noticed Wolfgang Haug was having this same problem in 2005. I >>> guess my question is this; is the only workaround still to move >>> all schema rules into one file or is there a flag that can allow >>> the generator to ignore includes like there is for ignoring >>> imports? All of my schemas will be local to the project and >>> probably all in one directory. >>> >>> I don't like the idea of making this all one schema, since I will >>> be trying to validate at least a dozen separate xml document >>> types. The includes were being split out in order to share node >>> validation between the doc types. I guess I could take these >>> common fragments and put them into one file with a separate >>> namespace, but that just seems wrong for some reason (I cannot >>> put my finger on why yet). >>> >>> Thanks Kurt >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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
