Thanks! That would be greatly appreciated.
As a side note, there is no current way for the jaxb customizations in the
xsd to enforce those not to be listed is there?
Thanks again,
Malachi
At 12:23 PM 5/17/2004, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
> > 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jaxb.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jaxb.dev.java.net