[This message was posted by Heiko Bock of optitec consulting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to the "FAST Protocol" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/46. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/1f9d8e22 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
I am often confronted with the opinion: "Mandatory fields are never nullable by definition". I would like to know, where is this defined? The FAST Specification defines only a positive list of all cases in which nullable types have to be used. There are no information about forbidden cases. The FAST Protocol - Transfer Encoding Specification - gives some information about the sense of Null values. It also does not forbid any combinations of nullable data types and mandatory presence. Are there information that explicitly forbid such combinations? Reason of question & example: I become aware of a template defintion, where a field with a nullable supporting integer type is used differently: a) optional - no operator b) mandatory - no operator a) is explicitly defined within the FAST specification. It is clear, that the type have to support Null Values. b) is not explicitly defined within the spec. I think, because of the presence "mandatory", the transfered values of this field would never be a null value. So, is the property of null support really a problem in this case??? What do you think? [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FIX-Protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
