Perhaps I'm not explaining myself properly. It is commonplace to have recurring data sets in fixed length messages, for example, take this message:
For simple structures, this could be mapped as follows: Not ideal, but it would work fine. Where this becomes a problem is when you have a large number of these (let's say 99 of them). In that case, the above approach becomes overwhelmingly inefficient; adding 198 properties to a class and some custom methods to iterate over them is a large effort in itself. To be honest, I'm fairly shocked that Bindy doesn't support something like the CSV @OneToMany formatter for this exact (and very common) scenario. surya wrote > > hi, > > I would map my business/domain object to fixedlengthrecord object before > marshaling or vice versa for unmarshalling. Remember fixedlength record is > generally v flat with each field having unique start position within the > record, otherwise gets simply overwritten. > > peace, > surya > -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/FixedLengthRecord-and-OneToMany-tp5571433p5577163.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
