<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>The arrays as floats also cause “code too large” issues. The strings were a special case, because it was a value field (I guess I didn’t have the type?). The best I have so far is adding 840 (the next step is 2520) element arrays one at a time to an MF object with append, but you can perhaps figure something else out (variable parameters). I need MF append methods which return objects and not voids, though, and an append can’t take a single SF value. That’s no good, because it will produce methods which are the same size or bigger than the original.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>See previous example for set and append methods and divide-and-conquer (should we take a logarithmic approach or heuristic?).</p><p class=MsoNormal>John</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>John<o:p></o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:brutzman@nps.edu">Don Brutzman</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, March 29, 2017 1:17 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:yottzumm@gmail.com">yottzumm@gmail.com</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:x3d-public@web3d.org">X3D Graphics public mailing list</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: X3DJSAIL: Exceeding Java String limits on setValue? What do wedo?</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Third, now that arrays can be effectively handled as floats rather than strings, this opens the door to re-tackling any remaining "code too large" compilation issues - there are a few examples of that, especially for meshes. Will next work on how to subdivide exceedingly long arrays (perhaps 100 tuples at a time) and see if the set and append methods support such a divide-and-conquer approach. Any good techniques you've found will be good to share, TIA.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>