[This message was posted by David Rosenborg of Pantor Engineering AB <[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/f84c1795 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Dimitry - In terms of decoding the actual FAST message, there is no ambiguity. What you refer to is how the application message is populated with data from the decoded fields. This process is somewhat covered by the spec but is by no means fully detailed and only covers the most basic aspects. An implementation may handle the mapping from a template to the internal data model pretty much any way it likes. For example, if you have a group that is optional, but the application has flattened the group, then the individual fields in the application (at least logically) should all be optional, or you'll potentially run into problems. /David > Hi, I just realized that the encoding specification of a "group" field > is somewhat ambiguous: the group field may be flattened by the > application but the group presence indicates that the corresponding bit > in the parent group pmap. > > Thus, if the encoder and decoder use an optional group, the pmap bit > indicates that 1 or more of the group fields are present. However, if > the group is flattened, then pmap setting is confusing. > > Dimitry [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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=.
