# Working with collections and IDs |

JiBX Basics Overview Flexibility Performance Clean code News and Status User Comments Sponsors Bugs Getting Started Binding Tutorial A basic binding Binding extras Structure mapping Collections Using mappings Advanced binding Method hooks Custom code Binding Compiler Binding on Load Runtime JiBX Extras Building JiBX Schema Compatibility Mailing Lists FAQ Contributing License Binding Definition Definition details Definition contexts Conversions XML summary <binding> element <include> element <format> element <namespace> element <mapping> element <value> element <structure> element <collection> element Attribute groups Usage API Runtime JavaDocs Subprojects Generator Tools JibxSoap Xsd2Jibx | ### Working with collections Besides working with individual objects, applications often need to deal with collections of objects. Figure 8 gives a simple example of using collections with JiBX. Here the classes represent the basics of an airline flight timetable, which I'll expand on for the next examples. In this example I'm using three collections in the root `TimeTable` object, representing carriers (airlines), airports, and notes. Figure 8. Basic collection handling The Figure 8 binding definition uses a collection element for each collection. In the case of the first two collections there's a nested structure element to provide the details of the items present in the collection. I've highlighted the definitions for the collection of carriers in green, and the actual carrier information in blue, to emphasize the connection between the different components. The collection of airports is handled in the same way as the collection of carriers. The collection of notes differs from the other collections both in that it's stored as an array, and that the values are simple `String`s rather than objects with their own structure. You can use arrays of both object and primitive types with the collection element. In the case of simple values (primitives, or objects which are represented as simple text strings - including `String`s, as in this example), you just use one or more nested value elements (which must use style="element", directly or by default) instead of structure elements. The same applies for non-array collections of simple values. In the case of the Figure 8 binding the collections are homogeneous, with all items in each collection of a particular type. You can also define heterogeneous collections, consisting of several types of items, by just including more than one structure (or value) element as a child of the collection element. Figure 9 demonstrates using a heterogeneous collection for the carrier and airport data from Figure 8, with the structure definitions for the carrier and airport components (shown in green) combined in a single collection. Figure 9. Heterogeneous collection, with factory Figure 9 also demonstrates one way to work with collection interfaces (shown in blue). I've changed the type of the collection field in the `TimeTable` class to the `List` interface, rather than the concrete `ArrayList` class used in Figure 8. I've also added the `listFactory()` method, which returns an instance of a `List` interface. Finally, I added a factory attribute on the binding definition collection element to specify the factory method. When a factory method is given, JiBX calls that method to get a new instance of the class if it needs one during unmarshalling (see User extension method hooks for full details on this and other ways of using your own code with JiBX). JiBX will reuse an existing instance if one is already present, so the method is only called if the current value of the field is `null` (though when reusing a collection, you need to "manually" empty the collection before unmarshalling - a pre-set method works well for this purpose). As of the JiBX 1.1 release there's an easier way to accomplish the same effect as using a factory to supply instances of an implementation class. This is to use the new create-type attribute to specify the class used when creating new instances of an object. See the object attribute group descriptions for the full details. As with structure elements with multiple child components, heterogeneous collections can be either ordered (meaning the items of each type may be repeated, but the different types of items must always occur in the specified order) or unordered (meaning the items can be in any order). Either way, the child components of a collection are always treated as optional by JiBX (so zero or more instances are accepted). The collection element is generally similar to the structure element in usage and options, but accepts some additional attributes that are unique to working with collections of items. Most of the added attributes are for when you want to implement a custom form of collection, using your own methods to add and retrieve items in the collection. Another attribute, item-type, can be used to specify the type of items in the collection. For the prior examples I've used embedded structure elements to define the structure of items in the collection. This isn't the only way to use collections, though. You can instead leave a collection element empty to tell the binding compiler that objects in the collection will have their own mapping definitions. Specifying the type of items can be useful in this case to avoid ambiguity. Figure 10 shows an example of using mapping definitions in this way. Figure 10. Collections with mappings In Figure 10 I've converted the embedded carrier and airport structure definitions used in the earlier examples into their own mapping elements. The binding uses an item-type attribute to specify that the first collection (shown in blue) contains only carriers, while the second collection (shown in green) uses a generic `Object` array for the airport information. In this example, if I didn't specify the type of items present in the first collection JiBX wouldn't know when to stop adding unmarshalled items to the first collection and start adding them to the second collection. Using the item-type attribute makes it clear that the first collection is only intended for `Carrier` instances. I could also use an item-type attribute on the second collection, if I wanted to, but in this case it's unnecessary - the only thing following the carrier information in the XML representation is the airport information. The collection element will work with all standard Java collections implementing the `java.util.Collection` interface, as well as with arrays. When used with arrays, the defined type of the array is assumed as the type of the items in the collection. You can override this to a more specific type by using the item-type attribute with an array. You can also nest collections inside other collections. This is the approach used to represent multidimensional arrays, or Java collections made up of other collections. See the <collection> element details page for more details on the collection options and usage. ### Working with IDs Figure 11 gives a more complex example of working with collections. This builds on the Figure 10 XML and data structures. The prior collections of carrier and airport elements are still present, but now the XML representation uses wrapper elements (carriers and airports, respectively) for the collections of each type. The blue highlighting in the diagram shows this change. In the binding definition, the addition of the wrapper element is shown by just adding a name attribute to each collection element. Figure 11. Collections and IDs I've also added route and flight information to the Figure 11 binding. The most interesting part about these additions is the use of references back to the airport and carrier information. The carrier reference linkages are highlighted in green, the airport linkages in magenta. In the Java code, the linkages are direct object references. On the XML side, these are converted into ID and IDREF links - each carrier or airport defines an ID value, which is then referenced by flight or route elements. The binding definition shows these linkages through the use of an ident="def" attribute on the child value component of a mapping element supplying the ID, and an ident="ref" attribute on an IDREF value component that references an ID. Using ID and IDREF links allows references between objects to be marshalled and unmarshalled, but is subject to some limitations. Each object with an ID must have a mapping in the binding. The current JiBX code also requires that you define objects in some consistent way, though the references to the objects can be from anywhere (even before the actual definitions of the objects). In other words, you have to define each object once and only once. In Figure 11 the definitions occur in the carriers and airports collections. The current code also prohibits using IDREF values directly within a collection (so the definitions can be from a collection, but not the references) - to use references in a collection you need to define some sort of wrapper object that actually holds the reference. However, see JiBX extras for some support classes which extend the basic JiBX handling in these areas. Next: The many flavors of mappings