hi, I have added the minOccurs/maxOccurs support in sequence/choice elements in ADB (both in trunk and branch). http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2-1702 and the nested sequence/choice support as well.
In fact this is a databinding feature that xmlschema data binding group ( http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/) specifies in their basic and advanced specs. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/basic/basic.html http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/advanced/advanced.html (here is the status with the Axis2-1.1.1 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/report_axis2_java_1.1.1.html http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/report_axis2_java_1.1.1_xmlbeans.html ) As you can see most of the Test cases with ADB fails since it does not support minOccurs/maxOccurs support in sequence/choice elements. Although I have added the support in ADB, the problem is that the XmlSchema does not supports the minOccurs/maxOccurs in squence element yet. So if can shift the Axis2 1.2.1 with a new XmlSchema release (with above bug fixed) we can support most of the test cases in Basic profile and most of the test cases in Advanced schema as well. Up to now we have three blockers, the addressing issue seems to be a configuration problem. But I believe we have to fix other two issues before 1.2.1. Amila. On 5/13/07, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1. Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Asankha, > > I agree to both counts. 1.2.1 with UUIDGenerator changes and let the > changes in trunk stabilize for 1.3. > > thanks, > dims > > On 5/12/07, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dims >> >> I would want two fixes we asked for in Axiom to be released if an Axis2 >> 1.2.1 goes out soon.. One is on the UUIDGenerator used by Axis2 - that >> creates non-unique IDs which I think is critical even for Axis2 >> >> I do not think a 1.3 right now with the changes taking place in the >> trunk would be good, especially for dependent projects like Synapse.. >> and think its better to take some time to complete the cleanup and >> refactoring which is taking place, and then make 1.3.. >> >> asankha >> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> > Folks, >> > >> > Can we make a case for a 1.2.1? (Real soon?) I guess we should cut it >> > from the 1.2 branch. It should have absolutely minimal changes from >> > 1.2. For example the unwrapping changes for ADB that Amila checked in >> > today comes to mind. If Michele confirms the fix for the >> > AUTO_RELEASE_CONNECTION related changes that can be ported as well. >> > What else do we absolutely need to fix? If the list grows too long, it >> > may be better to just stick to trunk and do a 1.3 very soon (but not >> > as fast as we can cut 1.2.1). Anyways, what do you all think? Are >> > there changes needed by Rampart and/or Sandesha and/or Synapse and/or >> > Tuscany etc that dictate that we should do a quick 1.2.1? WDYT? >> > >> > thanks, >> > dims >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > -- Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/ Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/ Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Amila Suriarachchi, WSO2 Inc.
