[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Developer complaints about use of qualified and unqualified data type schemas
I hope this is a simple question - My organization has adopted much of the UBL NDR rules - including the designation of both qualified and unqualified data types. This is how we have implemented the concept - we have dates - a beginning effective date and an ending effective date. We made a qualified data type for "Effective Date" which use xsd:DateType. Our basic component "BeginEffectiveDateType" extends the qdt:EffectiveDate The problem is that we are in the process of implementing SOA. Developers are taking our messages schemas and importing them into their toolsets, they are complaining to us that the use of the data type schemas are making their jobs more difficult. Basically what they are reporting is that when base types are extended in other type definitions, the java toolsets are generating classes for the base types and the extended types -- so essentially they are getting extra classes that they don't need. The question we are getting on a more regular basis is "Why can't your common basic components directly use the xsd:types instead of using your qualified data types that provide no value except to create extra documentation." Besides the providing some extra value within the documentation - is there a reason the NDR uses this type of nested construct? Are we implmenting the concept incorrectly? Kathleen C. Morgan PRIME - IRS EDMO (301) 731-6768 kathleen.c.morgan@irs.gov / kmorgan24@csc.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]