Re: [Quickfix-developers] Re: empty tag

[VP M. IT A. E. T. <ass...@gm...>]

My opinion and what I would find useful:

if (tag already set)
{
  replace old value if a new non empty value is present
 never allow duplicate tags in the msg
}

Instead of numerous QF users to be checking and setting..it is better
to factor this in QF.
the issue of ambiguity may be resolved whenever
QF rejects a tag/value set operation by logging=20
"QFEONP QF Error Op Not Performed...tag without value cannot be added"
"QFEONP QF Error Op Not Performed...tag cannot be added for this msg"
"QFEONP QF Error Op Not Performed...tag value cannot be added in the
given format"
to a special QFE.log file
On 7/5/05, Oren Miller <or...@qu...> wrote:
> My concern is how to handle the situation where the field already exists.=
=20
> If field 58 is set in the message, and I set it again with a field that h=
as
> an empty tag, what does this mean?  Does it mean that I ignore the new fi=
eld
> and retain the old value?  Or do I remove the old field from the message
> completely.  In which case setting a field with an empty tag is the same
> behavior as calling removeField.  Both of these behaviors feel a little
> surprising to me.  I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this.
> =20
> --oren
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Alvin Wang=20
> To: Oren Miller=20
> Cc: qui...@li... ;
> qui...@li...=20
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:40 PM
> Subject: [Quickfix-developers] Re: empty tag
>=20
>=20
> Oren, I can understand where you are coming from. It makes total sense if=
 QF
> throws NoTagValue exception in this case. However, I just feel it will ad=
d
> workload to the developers and the production may become disruptive.=20
>=20
> Thanks=20
> Alvin=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Oren Miller" <or...@qu...>=20
>=20
> 07/05/2005 10:00 AM=20
>        =20
>         To:      =20
> <qui...@li...>,
> <qui...@li...>, "Alvin
> Wang" <AW...@FF...>=20
>         cc:        =20
>         bcc:        =20
>         Subject:        Re: empty tag
>=20
>=20
> We could, although more likely I would throw a NoTagValue exception.  I
> don't much like the idea of having QF silently ignoring a field that the
> developer would be expecting to go out in the message (much like I don't
> like the current behavior).  I can imagine the head scratching that would=
 go
> on if they added a field and then found it mysteriously absent in the log=
s.=20
>  =20
> In either case if you have a field that might contain a blank value, I wo=
uld
> suggest checking it before adding it to a message.=20
>  =20
> --oren=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Alvin Wang=20
> To: qui...@li... ;
> qui...@li...=20
> Cc: Oren Miller=20
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:10 PM=20
> Subject: empty tag=20
>=20
>=20
> HI=20
>=20
> If I set a tag as below:=20
> message.set(new Text(text));=20
> and if the variable "text" is null. QF will include an empty tag 58. As a
> result, some FIX engine (such as QF itself) on the other end will reject =
the
> message.  Can QF skip including empty tag?=20
>=20
> Thanks=20
> Alvin
> **********************************************************************
> This e-mail message is intended solely for the use of the addressee. The
> message may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
> Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If =
you
> are not the intended recipient, please do not disseminate, distribute or
> copy this communication, by e-mail or otherwise. Instead, please notify u=
s
> immediately by return e-mail (including the original message with your
> reply) and then delete and discard all copies of the message. We have tak=
en
> precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses but
> nevertheless advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachm=
ent
> to this message. We accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by
> software viruses.
> **********************************************************************
>=20
>