[Jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBossXB] - Re: MTOM/XOP support

[<hei...@jb...>]

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