Hi Dennis, Thanks for your interest in this issue!
Actually we considered your proposed approach, but didn't try it out, because we *assumed*, that jibx would allocate a new item instance for each read item of the sequence. If this could be prevented, your proposal would be cleaner, I think. The prevention of that reallocation of items is important in our use cases, because each item usually contains a lot of sub items. Daniel > 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 > _______________________________________________ jibx-users mailing list jibx-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jibx-users
