On 3/2/06, Kohsuke Kawaguchi <Kohsuke.Kawaguchi_at_sun.com> wrote:
>
> Malachi de Ælfweald wrote:
> > 2) the .xjb bindings... don't they have to be associated with specific
> > schemas? ie: wouldn't a HashMap work better than ArrayList?
>
> No, they don't. A list is suffice, actually.
Any reason we can't just specify the parent directory and let it find them
recursively like it does with the XSD files?
> 4) what about strict/-nv?
> > FYI: I think a good thing to do is just make sure that we cover every
> > option a user would get from typing 'xjc' on the command line
>
> (the reason I'm suggesting to reuse the Ant syntax is so that we get the
> coverage for free, as you know.)
Yeah, I understand that. I had considered calling the Ant task directly at
first too. And I do think there are specific people that it would be easier
for.
But, you know, you are the Code-Autogeneration-Guru. Why haven't you
written a tool that will auto-create both of them? ;)
Mal