Hi Daniel, That's interesting, I hadn't thought anyone would have this type of situation. But I don't understand the problem with using <collection>s. You can *define* something as a collection in JiBX binding terms without actually *having* a collection in your Java object; just define an add-method for the collection, which can throw away the processed items.
- Dennis Dennis M. Sosnoski SOA, Web Services, and XML Training and Consulting http://www.sosnoski.com - http://www.sosnoski.co.nz Seattle, WA +1-425-296-6194 - Wellington, NZ +64-4-298-6117 Krügler Daniel wrote: > Hello! > > I wonder, why the structural attribute "allow-repeats" is limited to > unordered groups! > > Indeed, we use this attribute very often, because we have the usecase where a > client > program imports xml files (via jibx) which contain large and ordered(!) > sequences of the same > item type each into the same item representation (i.e. class) instance and > use this item's post-set > method to transfer the instance to a server-side database. We *cannot* use > collections here, > because of its large memory overhead in our cases (The client itself doesn't > need them). Our solution > leads to a quite effective block-wise data transfer and our post-set listener > can use any caching > strategy it likes, e.g. it can use a small buffer of only some item instances > to cache them before > sending the bunch to the server. > > The sole drawback is, that unordered reading is less effective than ordered > reading. > > Are there any chances to extend "allow-repeats" for ordered groups? From my > point of view > this limitation seems rather artificial, doesn't it? > > Greetings from Bremen, > > Daniel Krügler > > > _______________________________________________ > jibx-users mailing list > jibx-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jibx-users > > _______________________________________________ jibx-users mailing list jibx-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jibx-users
