[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/d9599576 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> You could also detect this special case by writing some code and > plugging it into QFJ and disconnect the session. But I agree, it rather > makes sense to drop the connection instead of sending subsequent logons > at the QFJ Engine level. > > Natraj, maybe you could log this as a bug on QFJ? Nataraj had already submitted a QFJ bug report before this thread was started. http://www.quickfixj.org/jira/browse/QFJ-380 Hopefully, he will do some same for Cameron FIX. In the meantime, a change to next version of QFJ will not completely solve his problem. It seems that developers often don't upgrade their FIX engine versions quickly so old QFJ versions will still be out there. It's also possible that other FIX engines either implement the standard behavior (dropping the connection) or some other nonstandard undesirable behavior when Cameron FIX doesn't respond correctly to the sequence reset. I second the advice someone gave to add a Cameron FIX message transformer to add the 141=Y to the outgoing logon message when it's needed. [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
