AW: [sdo] ISSUE 22 and handling substitution groups

["Barack, Ron" <ron.barack@sap.com>]

Title: Proposal for Static SDOs.doc

Hi Everyone,

 

One thing that occured to me when playing with this set of annotations is that since we removed @SchemaLocation, there is no standard way to express substitution groups using annotations.  For example, if I want to parse SCA composite files, which make heavy use of substitution, there's no way I can do it if my metadata is coming from annotations alone.

 

Is this a case we want to hande?  If so, we need an addition member in @SdoXmlProperty:

 

        String ref() default ""

 

When @SdoXmlProperty is applied to a property defined on a type (ie, annotates a getter method), then ref should contain the QName of an open content property.  When @SdoXmlProperty is applied to an open content property (ie, it used inside of @SdoOpenContentProperty), then ref points at the head of the substitution group.  In both cases, the QName is represented as a string in our "uri#name" format.

 

Can I ask everyone for quick feedback on this, since I'm still hoping to get this issue resolved on Tuesday.

 

 

Ron

 

---

Von: Barack, Ron [mailto:ron.barack@sap.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2009 12:29
An: sdo@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: [sdo] Proposal for Static SDOs.doc

<<Proposal for Static SDOs.doc>>
Hi Everyone,

Per yesterday's meeting, here is an updated version of the proposal, with behaviour wrt nested interfaces described.

I believe the proposal is consistent with JAXB 2.0 section 6.7.3, which states that anonymous XSD types map to nested classes.  I couldn't find anything in the JAXB spec that defined how unannoted nested classes are handled, but I assume symetry with 6.7.3 would mean that they correspond to annonymous types.  Just as JAXB allows @XMLType also on nested classes, we allow @SdoType on nested interfaces, so that is consistent with this proposal, too.

If there are any comments or suggestions, let me know so I can work them in before Tuesday's call, and maybe we can simply vote on the resolution then.

Ron