[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1178?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12482093
]
Andy Grove commented on TUSCANY-1178:
-------------------------------------
I've spent some time looking at the spec and I think it would be useful to look
an example in more detail.
Lets look at the following example (note: in the test case none of the above
types are used for nillable elements so this example is not exactly the same as
the test case).
<xsd:element name="smallOddNumber" nillable="true" minOccurs="0"
type="dtfs:smallOddNumber"/>
The spec says that for the element "smallOddNumber" we need to create an SDO
Property called "smallOddNumber" with nullable=true. No problem so far.
The spec then says that "If the type of the element has Simple Content without
attributes, a Java Type with an Object instance class is assigned. For example,
IntObject instead of Int."
My interpretation of this is that the SDO Property "smallOddNumber" should have
an SDO Type "commonj.sdo/java#IntObject" assigned rather than
"commonj.sdo/Int". This implies that the property would never be assigned the
type "smallOddNumber", which doesn't seem correct.
I think there are two conclusions from this:
1. The CTS should not expect the extra Object types to be created - this isn't
required by the specification (but shouldn't be disallowed either)
2. This part of the specification needs reviewing / amending. Do you agree? If
so, we should file a bug against the specification too.
> DynamicTypesFromSchemaTestCase expecting *Object types to be created
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TUSCANY-1178
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1178
> Project: Tuscany
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Java SDO Community Test Suite
> Reporter: Andy Grove
>
> DynamicTypesFromSchemaTestCase expects the following types to be included in
> the list returned by XSDHelper.define() but there are no types with these
> names in the XSD (these types minus the "Object" suffix do exist though). Is
> there something in the spec that says these extra Object types must be
> created or is this Tuscany-specific implementation detail that should be
> excluded from the CTS?
> evenNumberOfOddOrEvenDigitsObject
> monthObject
> oddOrEvenDigitsObject
> smallIntObject
> smallOddNumberObject
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
