Hi On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, John MacAuley wrote:
As I have been going through the service description I realized we are going to have problems with our current use of xsd:int which is a signed integer value. If you remember we changed from the xsd:integer to an xsd:int in release 1.0 to simplify coding in Java since it uses a base int type instead of an Integer object. This was okay in release 1 since we were specifying bandwidth in Mbps, however, with the introduction of service descriptions it is possible to specify the units for capacity. This means with our current xsd:int definition we are unable to specify bps for capacity. Also, it looks like burst size as an xsd:int will also not work.
Looking at the XSD spec, it looks like integer is more or less what we want, as there are no intrisic limit to these things. Bending the .xsd to accomodate certain implementations, frameworks or languages seems silly.
Is anyone against me changing these to an integer or perhaps nonNegativeInteger?
Using long (or whatever) doesn't really change anything for me. Best regards, Henrik Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> Software Developer, NORDUnet