Heiko Braun wrote:
anonymous wrote :
| > Hi Alexey,
| >
| > after a discussion with thomas, we decided that only the declared type
| > 'xmlmime:base64Binary' should be optimized, instead of all
| > xsd:base64binaries:
| >
| > <xs:schema targetNamespace="http://www.w3.org/2005/05/xmlmime">
| >
| > <xs:attribute name="contentType">
| > <xs:simpleType>
| > <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
| > <xs:minLength value="3"/>
| > </xs:restriction>
| > </xs:simpleType>
| > </xs:attribute>
| >
| > <xs:attribute name="expectedContentTypes" type="xs:string"/>
| >
| > <xs:complexType name="base64Binary">
| > <xs:simpleContent>
| > <xs:extension base="xs:base64Binary">
| > <xs:attribute ref="xmime:contentType"/>
| > </xs:extension>
| > </xs:simpleContent>
| > </xs:complexType>
| >
| > </xs:schema>
| >
| > It seems that we are not able to read the content-type attribute from
| > our current schema model, therefore we do simple content-type guessing
| > based on the java type. The jbossws.utils.MimeUtils class contains
| > examples for that.
| >
| > Anyway i think your marshaller/unmarshaller implementations do not
| > need to deal with it, as the implementaiton actually comes from
| > jbossws, right?
| >
| > I saw that you factored the interface to XOPMarshaller/Unmarshaller. I
| > will move our implementation to that interface as well and drop the
| > initial abstractions from javax.xml.*
| >
| > /Heiko
|
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3945262#3945262
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3945262
|
