[This message was posted by Peter Pan of  <[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/9c19c9c8 - PLEASE DO NOT 
REPLY BY MAIL.]


Hi Hanno,

The comment to MDEntryType also makes me confused too.

As general, NoXXX would be the first field in the repeating group, but it is 
not repeated;
here, it may mean that MDEntryType  is the first field, which is in the 
repeated list. Right ?

As to the component issue, thanks for your info.

And now, I have identified that in the 
\fix-repository_20090420\FIX.4.4\Components.xml,there is no such definitions 
for both MDIncGrp and MDFullGrp.

And they are in the FIX 5.0 later. 






> In the doc fix-44_VOL_3_w_Errata_20030618.doc, page 64, it says that
> MDEntryType (269) "Must be the first field in this repeating group". Why
> do you think that NoMDEntries is the first field?
> 
> The fields NoXXX of type NumInGroup always indicate the number of
> instances in the repeating group. A group with 2 fields would look
> like this:
> 
> NoXXX = 2 F1 =<value> F2 =<value> F1 =<value> F2 =<value>
> 
> NoMDEntries is not a component. Please check FIXimate where you will see
> that this field is part of 2 components, i.e. MDIncGrp and MDFullGrp.
> These are defined in component.xml.
> 
> FIXimate is a good tool to see the components and their elements.
> 
> > I have some concerns about the tag NoMDEntries #268 as below:
> >
> > From the doc fix-44_VOL_3_w_Errata_20030618.doc, page 64, we can see
> > that in the table of Market Data - Snapshot / Full Refresh, the tag
> > NoMDEntries, of which type is NumInGroup, is supposed to be the first
> > tag of the repeating group, however:
> >
> > 1. the comments for this tag is "Number of entries following.", which
> >    makes me confused. It is the total entry number of this
> >    (repeating)group or it is the repeat times ? Since generally, it
> >    indicates the repeat times.
> >
> >
> > 2. In the component.xml, there is no such component definition that
> >    includes this tag. Why ? Is it a bug ? But I checked the FIX 5.0
> >    version component.xml too,the tag is also missing in the xml file.
> >
> > Can anyone help me clarify my concerns ?
> >
> > Thanks.


[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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to