[This message was posted by Rolf Andersson of Pantor Engineering <[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/140bdf33 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Patrick, after a quick analysis of the four current FAST production feeds (CME, Eurex, ISE, ARCA) as well as the FAST-like OPRA feed, my conclusion is that the Omap+Nmap construct is less efficient than the FAST Pmap construct. I've also tried to figure out if it's possible to simplify the implementation of Omap+Nmap versus Pmap, but I have so far not been able to show any improvement from a complexity or performance point of view. We spent a lot of time analyzing the use patterns of optional fields before suggesting the NULL value approach and I come to the same conclusion after this round of analysis. I may have missed some opportunities here (wouldn't be the first nor the last time:), so it's time for the rest of you to chip in. Best, Rolf > Draft 0.0.2 is now available from..... > > http://www.fastliteproposal.com > > Patrick > > > > Hi Rolf, > > > > I was thinking the same thing over breakfast this morning and so I > > have to agree with you. > > > > In addition I agree with your suggestion that the name should change > > from FastLite to FLITE. I think that end users would expect FAST Lite > > to be wire protocol compliant with FAST. I will therefore change the > > title of the proposal. > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > Hi Patrick, > > > > > > I'm looking forward to the summary of differences section. > > > > > > For the continued discussion, I would like to suggest that we let > > > "FAST subset" imply that "a FAST subset stream can be > > > encoded/decoded by a standard FAST encoder/decoder" > > > > > > Best, Rolf > > > > > > > Hi Rolf, > > > > > > > > I will gladly explain the differences between FAST and my proposal > > > > and identify those parts that I have attempted to subset. I agree > > > > that it is not a pure subset, the Nmap for example is an addition. > > > > I will add a comparison section to the front of the proposal > > > > document. > > > > > > > > Scott Atwell was kind enough to explain the proposal submission > > > > procedure to me, and there are several stages prior to public > > > > review. Whilst I am still intersted in feedback, anyone outside of > > > > the working group should clearly delay any review until the > > > > request is formally made. > > > > > > > > Thanks again for taking the time to read the proposal. > > > > > > > > Patrick [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
