[This message was posted by Steve Bate of Smart Trade Technologies <[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/64843aad - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> If so, it sounds like QFJ is having trouble, too. Yes, the spec does say > 141=Y is the proper response. But I'm a big fan of making FIX engines > bomb-proof and not assuming others will be 100% technically correct. If > I send a Logon with seq no 1 and 141=Y, and my counterparty sends me a > Logon with seq no 1, even if 141=Y is missing which might not be > technically correct, I should still assume that this was a success. The trouble on the QFJ side is that it's not dropping the connection when the sequence reset is not properly implemented by the counterparty FIX engine. According to the 4.4 specification, "the connection should be shutdown and manual intervention taken if this [sequence reset] process is initiated but not followed properly". I haven't checked all the versions of the specification but I assume this is the same or unspecified in other FIX versions. To be 100% technically correct per the specification this is the behavior that should be implemented by default in QFJ. Of course, a configuration option also could be added to support the assumption you described so that QFJ can compensate for nonstandard counterparty FIX engines. [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
