RE: [Quickfix-developers] Intermittent disconnect problem
Brought to you by:
orenmnero
From: Bishop, B. <Bar...@gs...> - 2004-11-30 08:11:23
|
Hello Oren, Thanks for the reply. Sounds to me like I should try version 1.9.2 or later in our production environment. I have been unable to reproduce the mysterious disconnect in our QA system to the same client, but this is not surprising as it is so infrequent. I have been simulating it by breaking something else in the chain (which would appear as a client disconnect) so this would explain the lack of an explanation from quickfix. I will try this over the next few days and report back. Thanks again, barry -----Original Message----- From: or...@qu... [mailto:or...@qu...] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 7:56 PM To: Bishop, Barry Cc: 'qui...@li...' Subject: RE: [Quickfix-developers] Intermittent disconnect problem Barry, For every disconnect that QuickFIX initiates, there should be a reason provided (not with 1.4.0, but with the new releases). With 1.9.4 (available now), QuickFIX also displays a "Dropped Connection" message if the disconnect is initiated by the peer (1.9.2, does not differentiate). That should help you to verify if it is QuickFIX that is initiating the disconnect. I don't think there are any more cases where QuickFIX initiates a disconnect without providing a reason. If the couterparty drops the connection, then unless they provide information in the form of a reject or logoff text, there is little QuickFIX can do to determine the cause. The best that we can probably do is report whether the socket was dropped gracefully, and therefore intentionally, or if it was an abnormal disconnect of some sort. Is there anything significantly different about this new client? Does their logs reveal anything about the nature of the disconnect? --oren > 1) Anyone have any idea what's going on? > 2) Is there a way to increase the amount of detail in log messages, > especially those to do with disconnection events? > 3) What sort of thing would cause quickfix to disconnect without > saying why? > > Thanks in advance, > barry |