[This message was posted by anand pandey of Deutsche Bank <[email protected]> to the "4.4 Changes" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/17. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/5be1a841 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> > > Agree that as per protocol,Pending Cancel is not possible on a > > > filled order. > > > > Actually you can have a pending cancel for a filled order. See the > > following scenario: > > > > 1. Order has Open qty left > > 2. Client sends in OrderCancel > > 3. Before Order Cancel is actioned. Remaining qty is filled on the > > Order. 4. The client will receive 150=Trade 39=Pending Cancel. > > (Note Pending Cancel has a higher ord status precedence than > > Filled) > > 4. The client then should receive a OrderCancelReject rejecting his > > cancelled as the order has been filled > > Yes, we encounter this case a lot, and then ClOrdID mess up. Do you > think which layer should handle this situation? OMS layer? Or Exchange > Connectivity layer? These RACE condition 99% menat for DMA where Qty up is not allowed so their is no Buy side sending such orders. For DISC order hardly this happens thats the reason why we see lot of unsol stuff. For pending canc scenario the pending status message would be showing 150=1 and 39=6 and then a 39=2 and then a canc reject.If we do like this it is very clear for the corresponding system. [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
