- From: Joe Fialli <Joseph.Fialli@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:06:05 -0400
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Anish Karmarkar wrote: > Here are the wordings Glen, Umit, Roberto and I agreed on to resolve > the issue: > > The xmime:expectedContentType annotation can be used in conjunction > with either type or element declarations. Certain data-binding > frameworks which use static type mappings prefer the > xmime:expectedContentTypes annotation to be on named complexType > declarations as opposed to on element declarations using those types. To > achieve maximum interoperability It is incorrect to state that interoperability is impacted. I would advise replacing "maximum interoperability" with "optimal static databinding" or "more precise static databinding". For example, instead of binding mime type "image/jpeg" to the more specific type, java.awt.Image, static databinding will bind to a more generic javax.activation.DataHandler, that still preserves the binary content fully. There is no interoperability issue, the databinding solution must serialize/deserialize the binary data precisely the same. The user of the api does not have as convenient to use static data binding. -Joe > with these tools, the use of > expectedContentTypes on element declarations using named complex types > is not recommended. An example is provided in Example 6. > > -Anish > -- >
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2005 23:08:05 UTC