Change to find-by-primary-key attribute entity-name

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Change to find-by-primary-key attribute entity-name

David E Jones

Jacques,

In your commit in revision 496094 for the simple-method.xsd file you  
changed the entity-name attribute of the find-by-primary-key element  
to be required. Is there a reason for this?

For now I'll change this back to be optional as it was designed to be.

Are there any other changes like this that you (or anyone) has seen?

-David


smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Change to find-by-primary-key attribute entity-name

Scott Gray
Hi David, Jacques

I've gone through the file with XMLSpy's grid compare and everything
else looks fine, it appears to have been a copy/paste problem as that is
the only entity-name attribute that isn't required by it's element.

Regards
Scott

David E. Jones wrote:

>
> Jacques,
>
> In your commit in revision 496094 for the simple-method.xsd file you
> changed the entity-name attribute of the find-by-primary-key element
> to be required. Is there a reason for this?
>
> For now I'll change this back to be optional as it was designed to be.
>
> Are there any other changes like this that you (or anyone) has seen?
>
> -David
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Change to find-by-primary-key attribute entity-name

Jacques Le Roux
Administrator
In reply to this post by David E Jones
David,

It's the only one I did.

Jacques

----- Original Message -----
From: "David E. Jones" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:29 AM
Subject: Change to find-by-primary-key attribute entity-name


>
> Jacques,
>
> In your commit in revision 496094 for the simple-method.xsd file you  
> changed the entity-name attribute of the find-by-primary-key element  
> to be required. Is there a reason for this?
>
> For now I'll change this back to be optional as it was designed to be.
>
> Are there any other changes like this that you (or anyone) has seen?
>
> -David
>
>