Aki Yoshida-3 wrote > ... and got a fix in their microwave. I'm not a native speaker, thus unsure if that is colloquialism, sarcasm or some sort of saying? It could mean "fixing could be quick if someone already had an idea", I guess. Anyway, regarding interoperability/transform feature:These are not issues in our current situation: The project partner is merely keen on providing (yet keeping governance over) his original file. Our extended (i. e. redefined) file is for our Web Service component only. If the partner uses our Web Services, he wants (and of course has to) use the extended/redefined version. The redefine idea was motivated from posts like this one <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10084145/xsd-extend-a-complex-type> . And it sounded to be reasonable at the time - and still does. But thinking about your remark, plain type extension *could be another option/solution* as well. That would NOT allow to keep the complex type's name, but it might work too. Regards, Timo
-- View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Question-CXF-generate-Web-Service-issue-when-using-xsd-redefine-tp5746898p5747383.html Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
