[This message was posted by John Prewett of Lava Trading <[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/47027006 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> John, Any suggestion/idea how to implement equivalent of the FIX > MsgSeqNum+ResendRequest logic. Implementing this implies that you have control over the interface to the out-of-process FIX engine that you use. If this is true, then it is possible. If this is false, there's nothing you can do except to switch to another FIX engine that offers message resynchronization after an outage. Implementing similar message synchronization logic to FIX almost brings you back to the suggestion of using an in-process FIX engine as you would be implementing something very similar to the FIX session layer recovery model, which is the large majority of what a FIX engine actually is. JohnP [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
