Hello again,
Werner Guttmann wrote: > > Sure. > > azimo wrote: >> I believe the answer to both a) and b) are yes but I must check with the >> guys who are actually working on this. I will get them to read this >> thread >> too and then I will answer back tomorrow. >> >> Thanks for the correspondence so far, >> >> Archie > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > > we discussed it a bit here at the workplace and also read up some more on the XML standard. Answers to both questions is yes. We basically have one question: If the below schema definition does not create an error when someone sends an empty element (either by <SomeNiceElementName></SomeNiceElementName> or <SomeNiceElementName/>) what is missing in the definition or in the way we use Castor? As it is, even with the Wrapping set to true (i.e. not using primitive types in the generated class files) we get a default value of zero. <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> We noticed in the XML standard some differance between simpleType and complexType where it said that simpleType always has a value. Is it this that kicks in and sets a default to zero even if we don't want it? Would it solve it if we had a complexType instead? Thanks, Archie -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unmarshalling-XML-with-null-values--tp16993226p17182702.html Sent from the Castor - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
