Re: ISSUE-22: Bare Vectors

> Schema allows allows for:
> 
>         <xs:simpleType name='myList'>
>                 <xs:itemType name='xs:integer'/>
>         </xs:simpleType>
> 
> And binding tools should be able to be smart about how they represent 
> elements/attributes of these types.

I realized that I should probably give an example of what I mean about 
"being smart" in this context.

We're all used to tools taking:

        <xs:complexType name='myType'>
                <xs:sequence>
                        <xs:element name='child' type='xs:integer' 
maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
                </xs:sequence>
        </xs:complexType>

and producing something like:

        class MyType {
                List<Integer> child ;
                }

And tools that, given 

        <xs:complexType name='myType'>
                <xs:sequence>
                        <xs:element name='child' type='myList' 
maxOccurs='1'/>
                </xs:sequence>
        </xs:complexType>

produce:

        class MyType {
                String child ;
                }

I would like a binding tool that produces the same class when presented 
with both versions of the schema.

pvb

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 23:31:00 UTC