[This message was posted by Hanno Klein of Deutsche Börse Systems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to the "General Q/A" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/22. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/15dcaa74 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
It should not matter as the order book situation (onto which the replace request is applied) is the same in both cases. In the first case the replace request to reduce qty below CumQty is made even though the current CumQty is known to be higher than my desired total quantity. I would attribute that to bad programming, i.e. not to check the remaining quantity prior to issuing a replace request. Only the second case is of interest, i.e. the order book situation has changed but I do not yet have knowledge about it. I still have the previous CumQty and decide to reduce the total quantity to a value ABOVE CumQty (otherwise I would use a cancel request). The in-flight condition makes it possible for me to make a "mistake" as the partial fill passes my replace request. > >In all of your solutions should the replace request be handled the same > >whether the order is > (1) 1st partially filled and execution report sent then replace request > to reduce qty received (do not pass) or > (2) partial passes replace request. > > Most examples in Appendix D refer to in-flight handling only. > > [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FIX-Protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
