Quoting "Werner Guttmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(...)
Okay, before having a go at this, let's get focused a bit. There's
already a work-around for this, as documented here:
http://castor.org/reference/html/xml.code.generator.html#d0e4989
Okay, I tried to verify that everything will be fine with that. But..
that's just a great example of how your docco drives me nuts :)
Read this:
"3.4.1.9. <enumBinding> element
<enumBinding>
(enumDef)
</enumBinding>
<enumDef>
(enumClassName = xsd:string, enumMember*)
</enumDef>
<enumMember>
(name = xsd:string, value = xsd:string)
</enumMember>"
and compare to the example:
"<enumBinding name="/enumType:durationUnitType">
<enum-def>
<enumMember>
<value>M</value>
<javaName>CUSTOM_M</javaName>
</enumMember>
</enum-def>
</enumBinding>"
Spot the difference in the 'enum-def' vs 'enumDef' element name? Also
enum-def is the only element on the whole tree that is not following
java naming conventions applied to xml elements so the first stab of
course is to use enumDef (which is wrong. enum-def helps me. To be
consistent, it should be enumDef though imo).
Anyways: once I name the enumtype (it is anonymous in the schema I
have to work with), I can resolve the name clash manually by
specifying the binding. I do not get to match the enumBinding to the
anonymous simpleType that is sitting there in the bang.xsd which I've
appended to JIRA (both "/bang/@prefix/enumType" and
"/bang/@prefix/enumType:" wouldn't work). Is there a way to match
anonymous types? (if not that's not a show-stopper as that's a change
'under the hood' I just can do).
Off to next test ...
Regards,
-Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
