Problems with groups and static SDOs.

2007-05-09 Thread Chris Mildebrandt
Hi, I'm having a little generation problem with groups. Here's my sample schema: http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; targetNamespace="http://www.example.org/Person"; xmlns:person="http://www.example.org/Person"; elementFormDefault="qualified">

Re: Problems with groups and static SDOs.

2007-05-10 Thread kelvin goodson
Hi Chris, the code snippet you supplied doesn't compile against the code that I generated. Person's dog Property is isMany=true so to add a dog you need to do person.getDog().add(aDog) Regards, kelvin. On 10/05/07, Chris Mildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I'm having a little generati

Re: Problems with groups and static SDOs.

2007-05-10 Thread Chris Mildebrandt
Hi Kelvin, Thank you for your quick response. I built Tuscany SDO the morning of May 9th. I'm using EMF 2.2.3. When I generate the static classes against the schema below, I see the following method created in PersonTypeImpl: public DogType[] getDog() { BasicEList list = (BasicEList)getDogL

Re: Problems with groups and static SDOs.

2007-05-10 Thread Frank Budinsky
Chris, The -arrayAccessors option is just some prototype testing in Tuscany, it's not supported. In fact, it's broken for several reasons these days. Since we changed to the noEMF generator pattern (i.e., there should be no EMF dependencies in the generated code), but notice that the getDog() m

Re: Problems with groups and static SDOs.

2007-05-10 Thread Chris Mildebrandt
Hi Frank, Thanks for the update. FYI, these pages still mention the arrayAccessors option: http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/java_sdo_overview.html http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANY/sdo-project-code-structure.html There should be a warning to avoid this option. We have quite a bit of code writt