[This message was posted by Bodipudi Jayaram of Chelmer Ltd
<[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/e70423f1 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Hi Hanno,
I understand what you are trying to get to, actually 193 is not
available in Standard MarketDataRequest(V), It's available in New Order
Single(D), but the purpose of both the tags is the same .Client uses FIX 4.3,
So why use custom tag instead of Standard tag.
Another good example is , client has used Custom Currency tag 5232 in
Market Data Request , although as we all know there is standard currency tag 15
which is available in New Order Single and other messages. So is it against the
protocol to use tag 15 in Market Data Request for the same purpose.
Correct me if I am wrong, Can all Standard Fields(as listed in
speciofic FIX version) be used in any message type where they fit in
appropriately or is it against the Protocol to use a field/tag from a message
type which has support for it and use that in a Message Type which does not
have support for it although the purpose of the tag in both the messages is the
same.
Hope it's clear what I am trying to get to.
Thanks,
Jayaram
> Field names should not be on the wire for tag=value syntax, i.e. only
> duplicate tag IDs should be a problem. This does not seem to be the
> case here.
>
> The actual message should not use two different tags that have the same
> semantic, i.e. either 193 or 5227 should be defined in the Rules of
> Engagement as being part of the message. You do not clearly state
> whether 193 is actually used or if it is only part of the standard
> MarketDataRequest but not used in the given interface implementation.
>
> There are a few duplicate names in the user-defined fields for cases
> where a lower version of FIX does not support the standard tag defined
> in a higher version. It is recommended to use the standard tag from the
> higher version (if you can) to avoid having all standard tags defined a
> second time as user-defined tags. Semantic duplicates have not (yet)
> been removed.
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > One of our client's spec uses FIX 4.3 and they used Custom tag 5227 –
> > FutSettDate2 for Market Data Request(Pre Trade) instead of using
> > already existing tag 193 (available in New Order Single) which is also
> > FutSettDate2. Currently we use a FIX testing tool which does not allow
> > duplicate field names.
> >
> > It looks like FTC supports duplication of Field Names. Is it standard
> > practice? How should we be handling such situations?
> >
> > http://fixprotocol.org/specifications/fields/5000-5999 - Look for 5227
> >
> > http://fixprotocol.org/FIXimate3.0/?language=en&version=FIX.4.3 –
> > look for 193
> >
> > Thanks, Jayaram
[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.
