[This message was posted by John Peng of IIROC <[email protected]> to the "4.2 Changes" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/5. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/df60c2c2 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
I take exception on the answer to question (5). A sell side can certainly use a single FIX engine to handle the communication with both tthe buy side and the exchange. A typical example is an order routing engine at brokage. The broker firm could "inject" their business logic between the in-orders and the out-orders. > Note my answer(s) below > > (1) FIX is primarily used for buy-side to sell-side communication. > (2) FIX is also used for sell-side to exchange communication. > > FIX is being used for both of the above. > > (3) For FIX communication between buy-side and sell-side, we would need > a FIX engine on both sides and a session needs to be maintained > between the 2 engines for any communication to happen. > > Yes > > (4) For FIX communication between sell-side and exchange, we would need > a FIX engine on both sides and a session needs to be maintained > between the 2 engines for any communication to happen. > > Yes > > (5) Assuming the above is true, I believe the sell-side can use a single > FIX engine for communication with buy-side as well as exchange. > > No. There is one Session Acceptor FIX engine which receives inbound FIX > Sessions from Buy side(s). Another Session initiator FIX engine sends > outbound FIX Sessions to Exchanges / other venues. Between the inbound > FIX engine and the outbound FIX engine there is an application which > applies business logic and decides which exchange would receive the > order or slice of the order. Since one is a Session Acceptor and another > is a Session initiator, two FIX engines are needed at a Sell side. > > (6) Most of the sample code that I see is a buy-side communicating with > a sell-side wherein the sell-side simulates a response. I want to > understand the end-to-end scenario with an exchange also in picture. > Lets say buy-side places an order. Sell-side receives the order and > instead of simulating a response needs to send the order to the > exchange. I am imagining that the sell-side application picks up the > order from buy-side-sell-side-session, probably makes changes to the > sendercompid and targetcompid, and sends the order on the sell-side- > exchange session to the exchange. Thus an end-to-end scenario will > always involve 2 FIX sessions. Is this correct? > > The two FIX Sessions one between Buy side <-> Sell side and between Sell > side <-> Exchange are independent of each other. Your description of end-to- > end scenario is correct. > > (7) I have some folks telling me that "buy sides will not have a FIX > engine but they will be able to send FIX messages using some > adapter. Only the sell side will have a fix engine to receive and > process these messages.". I believe this is incorrect. Am I correct? > > Not always, many buy sides would have a FIX engine. There could be > scenarios where the buy side does not have a FIX engine but instead > connects to a service provider who translates between non-FIX to FIX > using an adapter and sends out FIX orders to the Sell side and > translates the FIX executions into non-FIX format and hands it out to > the Buy side. > > The converse is also true. There are exchanges which have non-FIX > interfaces in which case a service provider translates from FIX to non- > FIX Exchange specific format and back. > > > I have a few BASIC questions bothering me and would like to understand > > if I am on the right track. Can you please confirm/answer the > > following: > > > > (1) FIX is primarily used for buy-side to sell-side communication. > > > > (2) FIX is also used for sell-side to exchange communication. > > > > (3) For FIX communication between buy-side and sell-side, we would > > need a FIX engine on both sides and a session needs to be > > maintained between the 2 engines for any communication to happen. > > > > (4) For FIX communication between sell-side and exchange, we would > > need a FIX engine on both sides and a session needs to be > > maintained between the 2 engines for any communication to happen. > > > >(5) Assuming the above is true, I believe the sell-side can use a > > single > > FIX engine for communication with buy-side as well as exchange. > > > > (6) Most of the sample code that I see is a buy-side communicating > > with a sell-side wherein the sell-side simulates a response. I > > want to understand the end-to-end scenario with an exchange also > > in picture. Lets say buy-side places an order. Sell-side receives > > the order and instead of simulating a response needs to send the > > order to the exchange. I am imagining that the sell-side > > application picks up the order from buy-side-sell-side-session, > > probably makes changes to the sendercompid and targetcompid, and > > sends the order on the sell-side- exchange session to the > > exchange. Thus an end-to-end scenario will always involve 2 FIX > > sessions. Is this correct? > > > > (7) I have some folks telling me that "buy sides will not have a FIX > > engine but they will be able to send FIX messages using some > > adapter. Only the sell side will have a fix engine to receive and > > process these messages.". I believe this is incorrect. Am I > > correct? [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
