Hi.
> In a general case, you really need to run a state machine, for sometimes
> it is possible for a property to contain items of different kind (try a
> mixed complex type with some elaborated content model.) These general
> cases are very hard.
Ugum, I've already found a case like
<choice maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element name="a" ... />
<element name="b" minOccurs="5" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</choice>
which is quite awkward to process. Mixed content will be a problem, too.
However what I currently have in hands seems to support quite a large
subset of schema, I believe.
[about the datatype validation]
> The last but more ambitious approach is, for the most of the major
> datatypes, there's relatively straight-forward Java code to check the
> value object directly (IOW, check Java int instead of java.lang.String
> that looks like xs:int.)
>
> For example, checking the range of int is as easy as "x<100". So if you
> are willing to confine yourself to a subset of datatypes, then you can
> actually try to generate the code that validates datatype values
directly.
>
> This would look really nice, but you would probably find it difficult to
> support all the datatypes in this way. But then, that's probably OK in
> practice, as not all the datatypes are used equally, and not all the
> facets are used equally.
I like this approach most of all. I haven't examined the datatype
hierarchy yet, so can't estimate the work effort to implement "datatype
verifier code rendererers" for a meaningful subset of datatypes. But if
it's realistic, I'd opt to this solution.
Thanks for support, Kohsuke.
ps. Is Sun hiring? :) [joking]
Bye.
/lexi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jaxb.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jaxb.dev.java.net