azimo wrote:
> Hi again.
>
> Thanks for the answers, snipping to ask additional questions.
>
>
> Werner Guttmann wrote:
>> Yes. As already explained, a minOccurs="0" indicates that the element
>> can be (optionally) included in your XML, but this is not mandatory. And
>> this is an exclusive OR: either it is included or it is not. When it is
>> included, the fact that it is included mandates that it has to meet the
>> remainder of the criteria in your XML schema.
>>
>> In your case - and here I am taking the XML schema fragment from below -
>> this implies that if there's an
>>
>> <SomeNiceElementName> ...</SomeNiceElementName>
>>
>> included in your XML, its value space is that of <xs:integer> and the
>> value has to meet the 'totalDigits' facet as well. In other words, having
>>
>> <SomeNiceElementName></SomeNiceElementName>
>>
>> or
>>
>> <SomeNiceElementName/>
>>
>> would be invalid and violate the element definition (aka anonymous
>> simple type definition specified).
>>
> Shouldn't the unmarshalling produce an error then based on the schema
> definition below??
Yes, it actually should. Let me ask you a few questions:
a) You have used the Castor XML code generator to generate code from
your XMl schema, correct ?
b) If so, have you compiled the generated descriptor classes and made
them available on the class path ?
> As it is now, if I have:
>
> <SomeNiceElementName></SomeNiceElementName>
>
> then a value of 0 appears in the attribute mapping to the element during the
> unmarshalling.
>
>
> Werner Guttmann wrote:
>>> Definiton of element:
>>>
>>> <xs:element name="SomeNiceElementName" minOccurs="0">
>>> <xs:annotation>
>>> <xs:documentation/>
>>> </xs:annotation>
>>> <xs:simpleType>
>>> <xs:restriction base="xs:integer">
>>> <xs:totalDigits value="5"/>
>>> </xs:restriction>
>>> </xs:simpleType>
>>> </xs:element>
>>>
>>> Some additional info. This is an element not defined by me. The problem
>>> we
>>> have is something I am simply dabbling with on the side, I don't know
>>> enough
>>> of XML schemas to say if that is poorly written or not.
>> Yes, it is, if there's a requirement that this element should be able to
>> carry 'null' values. I hope that my comments above make things clearer
>> to you.
>>
>>> I also understand
>>> that not having the element present in the XML vs. getting an empty
>>> element
>>> in the XML is not the same thing, I would just like to know if there is a
>>> nice and simple way of making it the same thing (usually I have little or
>>> no
>>> use for an empty string "" or 0 and would in many instances always want
>>> to
>>> set NULL to an attribute that receives this).
>> Not the same thing, but you could use the 'nillable' attribute on the
>> element definition, and allow out-ouf-band signals about emptiness.
>>
> Is "nillable" the only solution or could the "poorly" written schema be
> written in a better way so that it still means optional but when an empty
> tag appears it doesn't try to add a default value for that type (in this
> case integer and the value of 0)??
Let's first see what your answers are to my question above ?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Archie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
