Thanks for the input. I will give it a try tomorrow and let you know. I hope this is all I need. Jeff G.
On 10/25/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I could be way way off here, and I haven't looked at this in a long > time, but.... have you both set up type inheritance for the schema > types and a substitution group for the elements? I have a faint > recollection that for the xml you want to be acceptable all the > elements "instantiating" the subtypes have to be in a substitution > group for the element "instantiating" the base type. I don't know if > this will be sufficient to get the output you want but I suspect it > is necessary. > > maybe this is relevant and might help :-) > david jencks > > On Oct 25, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Jeff Garrett wrote: > > > Hi all. > > I took a quick scan though the archive and some google searches but > > did not find what I was looking for. If I missed a good link, > > please provide it. I am using Xml Beans 2.2 in my project and all > > is well, very well in fact. I am not an expert and am fairly new, > > but so far its been very intuitive for me. But one small thing is > > bugging me and I can't find a way to fix it (if its possible). > > > > In my xsd, I define a base type and multiple types that extend the > > base type. It is esentially an abstract object, with more detalied > > and specific objects extending the abstract object. This is > > reflected in the generated source and interfaces, as the specific > > types really do extend the base object. I am 99% sure my schema is > > defined properly, so I don't think its it, but I could be wrong. > > The base type has a few attributes and the specific types each > > specific attributes that belong to it only (whereas base ones are > > available to all specific types) > > > > Now, the problem, is that when something occurs involving the > > specific types, the base class is referenced in a way that I don't > > want. I know its not wrong, and the xml I have validates, but it > > doesn't look the way I want it to. Best described with an > > example. In this example, the info tag will add a new base type by > > default, but really I add a specific type since each contains more > > info specific to that type. And this is obviously allowed since > > the specific type is also a base type (through inheritance). Fyi, > > the namespace prefix indicates cei=base type, odis=specific type. > > > > How can I get it such that it looks like the way I want it, not the > > way I currently get it? I want the specific type to be in the tag, > > not the base type and a reference to it using xsi:type. I know the > > base type will need to be referenced because they are not in the > > same namespace, but I don't see why it is the type in the tag, when > > really it is the specific type being used. Is there a setting in > > XmlOptions that says always use specific type, never base type? Or > > is there something I have to set in the xsd? I have tried lots of > > different settings, btu have been unsuccessful thus far. > > > > Thanks. > > Jeff G. > > > > This is what I currently get: > > <m:op> > > <m:info> > > <cei:baseType xsi:type=SpecificType> > > <cei:attr1>String</cei:attr1> > > <cei:attr2>2001-12-17T09:30:47.0Z</cei:attr2> > > <odis:attrX>String</odis:attrX> > > <odis:attrY>2001-12-17T09:30: 47.0Z</odis:attrY> > > </cei:baseType> > > </m:info> > > </m:op> > > > > This is what I want: > > <m:op> > > <m:info> > > <odis:specificType> > > <cei:attr1>String</cei:attr1> > > <cei:attr2>2001-12-17T09:30:47.0Z</cei:attr2> > > <odis:attrX>String</odis:attrX> > > <odis:attrY>2001-12-17T09:30:47.0Z</odis:attrY> > > </odis:specificType> > > </m:info> > > </m:op> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
