[Quickfix-developers] RE: No change needed... I like the way it is done..I just changed three lines (modeled after Executor.java) and I got this far..

[Steve B. <st...@te...>]

> It is conceivable that it could not initialize with the host I had 
> given as it is restricted host.

Do you mean it couldn't read the data dictionary from that host?
A failure to connect to the server host shouldn't have caused that
particular error.

> In that case a one liner that the session could not be initialized 
> would be better when the error is detected and continue on with the 
> initialization of other sessions. > One session not hindering the 
> setup of other sessions is a good design principle.

That's what I was thinking, but there are tradeoffs. It sounds like the QF
C++  aborts the startup when a session configuration fails so I think I'll
change QFJ to be the same.
Actually I may add the ability to configure the initiator and acceptor
configuration for either behavior.

> --- I will sign up for some documents and MBean ...as detailed below.
> 
> What we need is set of documents to help people get it to run. Leave 
> that to me...By this Weekend I will send you a word document 
> illustrating everything I did right from downloading for you to edit 
> and share it with everyone.

That sounds good. Thanks.

> quickfix is an excellent idea. And quickfixj makes it irresistible.
> I have the MBean that loads quickfix but dies without trying due to 
> jni issues or when a logon arrives.
> Now with purej we can be cruising along..I have already put the 
> procedure to get JBOSS on gmane and quickfix dev groups.

I've seen you post information about JMX code you were writing with
QuickFIX. One of the QFJ developers has done some prototyping on JMX MBeans
for Sessions and SessionManager (acceptor/initiator).
He's on vacation this week, but maybe we can get a discussion started on
that next week.

Steve