I have a couple of questions regarding the source-generator, which doesn't
generate the code I like but looks like it should be able to do so quite
easily...
In my XSD I have defined some simpleTypes, and some complexTypes.
My source is, for sake of argument, generated into a package my.foo
1) The simpleType definitions are put into a packapge my.foo.types, which is
great, but the complexType definitions are not - why not?
2) In my XSD I specify roughly the following:
<xsd:complexType name="foo1">
...
</xsd:complexType>
<xsd:complexType name="foo2">
...
</xsd:complexType>
...
<xsd:element name="bar">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="foo" type="foo1"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
<xsd:element name="bazz">
<xsd:complexType>
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="foo" type="foo2"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>
As you can see, I have 2 definitions for an element 'foo', but with
different types. What the source-generator now does, is make a new class Foo
extends Foo1, and it makes a new class Foo extends Foo2.
The second will overwrite the first.
However, IMHO there's no need to generate a class Foo at all! In classes Bar
and Bazz you can define variables by the name of foo with type Foo1 resp.
Foo2.
This would make me instantly happy and on the surface, it doesn't look like
a complicated change. I haven't looked at the source yet, however.
Any comments?
--Tim
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
