Re: [Quickfix-users] Isn't it time for a new

[Jonathan K. <jon...@gm...>]

Is there a timeframe on using FIX 5.0?  I am building my order book system
and will probably base it on 5.0?  Sorry, if this question has already been
answered.

Thanks,

Jonathan

On Jan 21, 2008 8:59 AM, <sou...@sp...> wrote:

> QuickFIX Documentation:
> http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
> QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html
>
> Hi Drazen.
>
> Yes, we are definately overdue for an official release.  To put your
> mind at ease a bit the current version has had very little in the way
> of issues in the real world.  Certainly nothing that would be
> considered a critical flaw.  The issue that you see is preemptive,
> but not terribly critical.  It only effects you if you have no access
> to your persistence, and even then the effects aren't really
> detrimental.  It would cause a message to be sent out even though
> persistence is down.  Basically you would have sent what you intended
> to send, but there would be no record of it in the message store
> making it unavailable for resend should the other side request it.
>
> But yes, we are looking on getting an official release out soon.  I
> know it's been longer than usual, but development is moving along as
> always.  There are a few things that need to be done to the current
> sourse before I would consider it releasable (the tests aren't the
> only criteria), but not much at this point.
>
> --oren
>
> On Jan 21, 2008, at 10:11 AM, <+sourceforge+draza+a8ee29347d.quickfix-
> users#lis...@sp...> wrote:
>
> > QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/
> > html/index.html
> > QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > first of all, a big thanks to all the contributors to this great
> > FIX implementation. I was able in relatively short time to
> > integrate FIX processing into our system. The build process is
> > flawless, the documentation sufficient (could be better, though)
> > and really, all around, great work.
> >
> > I was wondering if there were any plans on the next official
> > version? Looking at some of the commit logs done after the latest
> > official version, for example 1920 which states "Persistance is
> > done before sending and will fail if message cannot be stored or
> > sequence number cannot be incremented" I am worried that what I'm
> > using now (latest official version 1.12.4) might unnecessarily
> > cause issues down the road while the issues are actually already
> > fixed in the SVN (this one in particular is interesting).
> >
> > Yes, I am well aware of the possibility of pulling down the sources
> > as they are now, but I hate using "nightly" builds for production.
> > Looking at the suite of tests for QuickFIX, if they run
> > successfully, it shouldn't be that hard to simply declare current
> > source as 1.12.x or 1.13 (or whatever) and publish it.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Drazen
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Quickfix-users mailing list
> > Qui...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-users
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-users mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-users
>



-- 
--
Jonathan Kalbfeld
ThoughtWave Technologies LLC
www.thoughtwave.com
+1 424 354 1814