> The autogenerated API says that the valid values are option, value, toggle,
> flag, and optionConfig
> Now, although I would like "option" no not be on the list, the one I am
> concerned about is optionConfig. Why is the abstract element's type listed
> as a valid child -- the other 3 types are not....
I think here's what's happening:
The internal binding model usually works with somewhat relaxed content
model. For example, it doesn't check for abstract elements. The reason
for this is that (1) the generated code/compiler will become simpler and
(2) it allows more invalid documents to be unmarshalled.
The validator, OTOH, enforces all the constraints, including the
abstract element checks.
The javadoc is generated from the internal binding model, and therefore
it didn't take the abstractness of elements into account.
I agree that it's confusing, so I'll change it so that the binding model
would properly reflect abstract elements.
regards,
--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Sun Microsystems kohsuke.kawaguchi_at_sun.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jaxb.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jaxb.dev.java.net