[This message was posted by Scott Atwell of American Century Investments
<[email protected]> to the "Algorithmic Trading" discussion
forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/31. You can reply to it on-line at
http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/d99fc43b - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> In the FIXatdl the StateRule statement controls the visible/enabled
> property of a control. When a control is not visible or not enabled
> another StateRule is required if this parameter is NOT to be sent
> down the wire.
>
> Would it not make more sense to define that values for hidden and
> disabled controls should not be sent down the wire? If they have been
> hidden or the user prevented from selecting a value then the value it
> should be (if any) must be able to be deduced from the specification and
> therefore transmission is unnecessary?
Note that the only way to make a control "read-only" (where the user cannot see
the value) at present is to set it enabled="false" (or visible="false"),
however, that does not mean that one does not want the value to go over the
wire. I questioned the "visible" setting as being something that can control
ok-for-the-wire, however, it was later clarified that one must use
value="{NULL}" to declare the control as not having a value to go over the wire.
[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.
