Yes, that would be one way to implement it. Though I would properly do
this under the ee namespace...
On 20 Mar 2009, at 07:14, Nicklas Karlsson wrote:
Back to the issue at hand ;-)
So. Is my understanding correct that we would have one hand-written
webbeans.xsd somewhere that defines that a beanType can have children
that are constructor parameters, methods and fields and they have
corresponding methodType, fieldType etc that describe them and then
the schema.xsd:s which are generated dynamically just describe the
structure of the classes and refer to wb:beanType, wb:fieldType,
wb:methodType etc?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Jason T. Greene
<jason.greene(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Jason T. Greene wrote:
>>
>> <xs:element name="bindingElement" type="bindingType"/>
>>
>> <xs:complexType name="classType">
>> <xs:sequence>
>> <xs:element ref="bindingElement"/>
>> </xs:sequence>
>> </xs:complexType>
>>
>> // in the sales namespace
>> <xs:element name="Bar"
substitutionGroup="webbeans:bindingElement"/>
>>
>> // in the acme namespace
>> <xs:element name="Foo" type="classType"/>
>>
>>
>
> You also want to make bindingElement abstract (abstract=true).
>
> --
> Jason T. Greene
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>
--
---
Nik