[This message was posted by Hanno Klein of Deutsche Börse Systems <[email protected]> to the "5.0 SP2 Feedback" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/121. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/cc62870f - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
I believe the sequence of events is not shown correctly, i.e. Time:4 and Time:3 should be swapped. If the order is accepted before the cancel request is processed then the ER responding to the cancel request must have been compiled later than the ER for the response to the New Order Single. Accepting the order means to set the OrdStatus to New. Then comes the processing of the cancel request which sets OrdStatus to Pending Cancel. It seems confusing that the responses are not sent out in the order that the requests were processed. Lines 6-9 show the opposite case where the cancel request is processed first. In that case, there is no explicit response to the New Order Single but only two responses to the cancel request (Pending Cancel followed by Cancelled). > In document , FIX-5.0_SP2_VOL-4.pdf > case : B.1.d Cancel request issued for an order that has not yet been > acknowledged. (Page:61) > I just wondering why in Time:4 ,the OrdStatus is not PendingCancel ? > Isn't it the Pending Cancel's precedence bigger than New ? [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.
