See org.apache.cxf.javascript.ParticleInfo.factoryCommon(XmlSchemaParticle,
XmlSchema, SchemaCollection, NamespacePrefixAccumulator,
ParticleInfo).
And here's some XML serialized ...
<testBean1 xmlns:jns0='uri:org.apache.cxf.javascript.testns'
xmlns:jns1='uri:org.apache.cxf.javascript.testns2'
><jns0:stringItem>bean1<stringItem</jns0:stringItem><jns1:intItem>64</jns1:intItem><jns0:longItem>64000000</jns0:longItem><jns0:base64Item></jns0:base64Item><jns0:optionalIntItem>101</jns0:optionalIntItem><jns0:optionalIntArrayItem>543</jns0:optionalIntArrayItem><jns0:doubleItem>-1</jns0:doubleItem><jns0:beanTwoItem
xmlns:jns0='uri:org.apache.cxf.javascript.testns'
xmlns:jns1='uri:org.apache.cxf.javascript.testns2'
xmlns:jns2='uri:org.apache.cxf.javascript.fortest'
xmlns:jns3='uri:org.apache.cxf.javascript.testns3'
><jns3:stringItem>bleep</jns3:stringItem></jns0:beanTwoItem></testBean1>
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Benson Margulies
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the package-info for the 'fortest' package in the Javascript tests ...
>
> @javax.xml.bind.annotation.XmlSchema(xmlns = {
> @javax.xml.bind.annotation.XmlNs(
> namespaceURI =
> "uri:org.apache.cxf.javascript.testns3",
> prefix = "Plan3")
> }
> ,
> elementFormDefault =
> javax.xml.bind.annotation.XmlNsForm.QUALIFIED
> )
> package org.apache.cxf.javascript.fortest;
>
> So, one would think that we're doing some qualified elephants. I'll
> continue to dig.
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Benson Margulies
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are unit tests for a lot of cases here, and I'm sure I've seen
>> XML prefixes. I don't pretend to have the code generator memorized, so
>> my approach in a case like this is to see if we've got the right test
>> case, if not add it, and then watch for the fireworks when I run it.
>> You are welcome to beat me to a check through the test cases. I don't
>> have a strong prediction as to whether the code is right and you just
>> haven't see why, or whether the code is wrong. I'll try to get into
>> this tonight.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Merritt, Norris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Thanks Benson, I located the source, I was momentarily confused because the
>>> source trees in the source distribution do not follow the package names as
>>> closely as I expected. I finally found the source under "frontend".
>>>
>>> I wanted to look at the source to see about making some enhancements
>>> because I noticed that the serialization strategy seems to ignore
>>> attributes defined in the XML schema, and also seems to ignore
>>> elementFormDefault, i.e. there seems to be no provision for qualifying
>>> element names with prefixes during serialization.
>>>
>>> All of the serialization routines seem to take the following general form:
>>>
>>> if (elementName != null) {
>>>
>>> xml = xml + '<';
>>>
>>> xml = xml + elementName;
>>>
>>> xml = xml + ' ';
>>>
>>> xml = xml + 'xmlns:jns0=\'http://xyz.com\';
>>>
>>> if (extraNamespaces) {
>>>
>>> xml = xml + ' ' + extraNamespaces;
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> xml = xml + '>';
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> I don't see how attributes defined on the complex type for which
>>> "elementName" is being emitted are ever emitted, or how the serialized XML
>>> would survive validation if elementFormDefault="qualified" was specified in
>>> the XML schema. Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Norris
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benson
>>> Margulies
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 2:23 PM
>>> To: Merritt, Norris; CXF Users
>>> Subject: wsdl2js
>>>
>>> Norris,
>>>
>>> wsdl2js was subsumed into CXF. Most of the code is inside
>>> rt/javascript, but the command-line interfaces are in the tools area.
>>> There is documentation at
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/CXF20DOC/javascript-clients.html.
>>>
>>> --benson
>>>
>>
>
