> Substitution groups
[...]
> Sorry for being unable to provide support for this, but I
> hope you'd understand that we have to crawl before we walk.
Fair enough. I agree that JAXB will be a better spec' if you get the basics
right and proven before moving on to the harder stuff.
>> To make it easy you could even require the substitutionGroup to be the base type
>> of the type of the element being declared. That way the substitutionGroup
>> heirarchy would match the type heierarchy generated by JAXB.
>
> I suppose that's one way to do it.
I suuspect that this is how substitutionGroups would be used 90% of the time
anyway. I don't think JAXB should become a "map any schema to java objects"
specification - it should be primarily about the "objects" side of things. What
I'm trying to say here is that I would happily accept such a restriction (the
above restriction on the substitutionGroup base type) since that would map
naturally to polymorphism with java objects and that's what JAXB should be
focused on.
Damon.