[This message was posted by Dimitry London of Morgan Stanley <[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/7044e778 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
David, thanks, this makes sense. Dimitry > 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]. 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=.
