[This message was posted by Yemi Oluwi of Deutsche Bank Securities
<[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/8ce7e98f - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Thanks Scott. What are the reasons for allowing the value of a hidden control
to be sent down the wire?
> > 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.
