[This message was posted by Hanno Klein of Deutsche Börse Systems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to the "FAST Protocol" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/46. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/407153b4 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
My view on this one is that we should give the clear design priority at this stage and keep the pmap restricted to metadata. It appears to me to be more of an extension for a FAST 2.0, whatever that may be. There are still implementations out there struggling with FAST 1.1 compliance. I think it is better to let the implementations become more mature and the number of FAST experts grow before optimizing data into the pmap. The bitgroup extension is more significant and already helps a lot with the fields having a very small range of values. Regards, Hanno. > All, > > following up on today's call; > > a few people on the call today voiced concerns about the added > complexity of FAST as a consequence of the pmap field placement > proposal. > > If I understood the comments correctly, the mix of metadata and data > would be problematic in some of the current implementations. > > I'd like to get your comments on this as well as suggestions on how we > should go forward. > > Thx, Rolf [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
