RE: [Quickfix-users] Re QFJ Session times (was Re QuickFIX/J 1.0.0 Beta 3 Released)

[Kimpton, C \(Chris\) <Chr...@ra...>]

Hi,

Here is the log from the jni run:

<20060215-21:54:53, FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX, outgoing>
=20
(8=3DFIX.4.2=019=3D83=0135=3D0=0134=3D5128=0149=3Drabo=0152=3D20060215-21=
:54:53.839=0156=3DFIX=0110=3D
228=01)
<20060215-21:55:00, FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX, outgoing>
=20
(8=3DFIX.4.2=019=3D83=0135=3D5=0134=3D5129=0149=3Drabo=0152=3D20060215-21=
:55:00.839=0156=3DFIX=0110=3D
227=01)
<20060215-21:55:00, FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX, event>
=20 (Disconnecting)
<20060215-21:55:00, FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX, event>
=20 (Socket Error)
<20060216-00:01:01, FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX, event>
=20 (Connecting to localhost on port 542)
<20060216-00:01:01, FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX, event>
=20 (Connecting to localhost on port 543)=20

I didn't notice the log times being different from GMT but I have always
ducked the question of what is UTC... Note this was running on the same
Windows (?) PC as I ran the QFJ version - so I guess UTC should have
been in sync.

With the QFJ version, I get this message at startup:

<20060223-06:44:47, FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX, event> (Session FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX
schedule is daily, 23:01:00 UTC - 20:50:00 UTC (00:01:00 GMT - 21:50:00
GMT))
<20060223-06:44:47, FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX, event> (Created session:
FIX.4.2:rabo->FIX)

I did not test the QFJ version prior to Beta3 on this matter.

Thanks,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: qui...@li...
[mailto:qui...@li...] On Behalf Of Oren
Miller
Sent: 22 February 2006 17:03
To: Steve Bate
Cc: qui...@li...
Subject: Re: [Quickfix-users] Re QFJ Session times (was Re QuickFIX/J
1.0.0 Beta 3 Released)

QuickFIX Documentation:
http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html

Not just default, it currently only support UTC.

--oren

Steve Bate wrote:

>QuickFIX Documentation:=20
>http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
>QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html
>
>Hi John,
>
>I have the same question. I thought the C++/JNI code used UTC as a=20
>default. Oren, can you clarify which is used?
>
>Steve Bate
>Smart Trade Technologies
>Phone: +33 4 42 90 03 97
>http://www.smart-trade.net/
>
>
> =20
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: qui...@li...
>>[mailto:qui...@li...] On Behalf Of John=20
>>Hensley
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:37 PM
>>To: qui...@li...
>>Subject: RE: [Quickfix-users] Re QFJ Session times (was Re QuickFIX/J=20
>>1.0.0 Beta 3 Released)
>>
>>QuickFIX Documentation:=20
>>http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
>>QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html
>>
>>Then I broke backward compatibility with the addition of time zones --

>>you shouldn't need to change your config. My understanding was that=20
>>previously the session times were always assumed to be UTC; that was=20
>>my experience with QF/J, and the impetus for adding time zones. You=20
>>said the JNI version would log out at 21:55 local time? By chance, did

>>you ever try a QuickFIX/J version prior to Beta 3 that also logged out

>>then?
>>
>>John
>>
_____________________________________________________________

This email (including any attachments to it) is confidential, legally pri=
vileged, subject to copyright and is sent for the personal attention of t=
he intended recipient only. If you have received this email in error, ple=
ase advise us immediately and delete it. You are notified that disclosing=
, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents =
of this information is strictly prohibited. Although we have taken reason=
able precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, we canno=
t accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the viruses i=
n this email or attachments. We exclude any liability for the content of =
this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of =
the information provided in this email or its attachments, unless that in=
formation is subsequently confirmed in writing. If this email contains an=
=20offer, that should be considered as an invitation to treat.
_____________________________________________________________