Uniqueness of component names

[kleihan]

Section 3.8.1.1 says "Like a field, a component or group has a numeric id attribute and a string name attribute. The schema enforces uniqueness of the id attribute among both types of components."

1. Should it be "across" instead of "among", i.e. a component and a group cannot have the same id attribute?
2. Why does the schema only enforce uniqueness of id and not also of name? in FIX we do not want the same name for two components, two groups or for a component and a group.

Section 3.8.1.1 further says "The scenario attribute of a component identifiers a use case; multiple components may have the same name, but the combination of name and scenario must be unique."

3. Should it say "multiple scenarios" instead of "multiple components"?
   (4. I already caught the typo in "identifiers" and will correct it)

[donmendelson]

Components and groups are now stored separately and have separate keys for uniqueness. (In the original design, components and groups were both stored together under <components>.)

In both cases, id+scenario must be unique and name+scenario must be unique.

Here's the schema declaration for components:

		<xs:key name="componentNameKey">
			<xs:selector xpath="fixr:component"/>
			<xs:field xpath="@name"/>
			<xs:field xpath="@scenario"/>
		</xs:key>
		<xs:key name="componentIdKey">
			<xs:selector xpath="fixr:component"/>
			<xs:field xpath="@id"/>
			<xs:field xpath="@scenario"/>
		</xs:key>

[kleihan]

Ok, then the FIX standard will be more restrictive than Orchestra in general, should not be a problem.

SO the answer to #3 is yes, i.e. two components must not have the same name but two scenarios can? The latter is obvious as all elements have a scenario called "base".

[donmendelson]

... all elements have a scenario called "base".

Not necessarily true. "base" is the default scenario name, but the author of an Orchestra file could choose to give every scenario an explicit name.