quickfix-developers — QuickFIX developers forum

RE: [Quickfix-developers] problem with invalid PossDup=Y messages

[James C. D. <jc...@co...>]

Hugo,
We are seeing reports of this issue but I can't seem to replicate it with an
acceptance test. Can you post the logs that show this issue? I'll keep
trying to replicate it with a test. 


Jim
 
James C. Downs
Connamara Systems, LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd
Suite 1627
Chicago, IL 60604
312 - 282 - 7746
www.connamara.com

-----Original Message-----
From: qui...@li...
[mailto:qui...@li...] On Behalf Of Hugo
Leote
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 1:29 PM
To: qui...@li...
Subject: [Quickfix-developers] problem with invalid PossDup=Y messages

Hi all,

I've detected a problem between quickfix server + client (or: acceptor +
initiator).
Let's suppose this rare scenario:

- client logs on;
- client detects seqnum gap, asks to resend messages from, say, seqnum=20;
- server resends message 20;
- (somehow message 20 has a tag without value, or some other validation
problem);
- client rejects message 20; (but does not increase targetseqnum)
- eventually, server sends next message;
- client detects seqnum gap, asks to resend messages from seqnum=20;
- server resends message 20;
- (etc, etc, client and server become stuck in this resend loop)


Versions affected (possibly not limited to) : 1.3.2, 1.7.0.

Am I doing something wrong / is this not true ?


Thanks in advance,
Hugo Leote



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest
thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. 
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
Qui...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers

Re: [Quickfix-developers] problem with invalid PossDup=Y messages

[Caleb E. <ca...@bk...>]

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 07:29:22PM +0100, Hugo Leote wrote:

> - client rejects message 20; (but does not increase targetseqnum)

	This is a bug which I believe is being addressed in the next
	release.  I think it may already be fixed in CVS.

> - eventually, server sends next message;
> - client detects seqnum gap, asks to resend messages from seqnum=20;
> - server resends message 20;
> - (etc, etc, client and server become stuck in this resend loop)
> 
> Versions affected (possibly not limited to) : 1.3.2, 1.7.0.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong / is this not true ?

	No, its a bug.

-- 
Caleb Epstein |  bklyn . org  |  An age is called Dark not because the light
    cae at    | Brooklyn Dust |  fails to shine, but because people refuse to
bklyn dot org |   Bunny Mfg.  |  see it.
              |               |  		-- James Michener, "Space"

Re: [Quickfix-developers] problem with invalid PossDup=Y messages

[Oren M. <or...@qu...>]

Hugo,

This has been reported several times in the past couple weeks.  We are 
working on getting a fix for this into the next point release.

--oren

On May 4, 2004, at 1:29 PM, Hugo Leote wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've detected a problem between quickfix server + client (or: acceptor 
> +
> initiator).
> Let's suppose this rare scenario:
>
> - client logs on;
> - client detects seqnum gap, asks to resend messages from, say, 
> seqnum=20;
> - server resends message 20;
> - (somehow message 20 has a tag without value, or some other validation
> problem);
> - client rejects message 20; (but does not increase targetseqnum)
> - eventually, server sends next message;
> - client detects seqnum gap, asks to resend messages from seqnum=20;
> - server resends message 20;
> - (etc, etc, client and server become stuck in this resend loop)
>
>
> Versions affected (possibly not limited to) : 1.3.2, 1.7.0.
>
> Am I doing something wrong / is this not true ?
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Hugo Leote
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 
> 10g.
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
>

[Quickfix-developers] problem with invalid PossDup=Y messages

[Hugo L. <Hug...@in...>]

Hi all,

I've detected a problem between quickfix server + client (or: acceptor + 
initiator).
Let's suppose this rare scenario:

- client logs on; 
- client detects seqnum gap, asks to resend messages from, say, seqnum=20;
- server resends message 20;
- (somehow message 20 has a tag without value, or some other validation 
problem);
- client rejects message 20; (but does not increase targetseqnum)
- eventually, server sends next message;
- client detects seqnum gap, asks to resend messages from seqnum=20;
- server resends message 20;
- (etc, etc, client and server become stuck in this resend loop)


Versions affected (possibly not limited to) : 1.3.2, 1.7.0.

Am I doing something wrong / is this not true ?


Thanks in advance,
Hugo Leote

[Quickfix-developers] Quickfix RPMs.

[Steve P. S. <ss...@st...>]

I've made some quickfix RPMs for fedora. These will probably work
with rh9 also. I'd like some feedback on any problems that might
exist. So give them ago on non-critical systems and send feedback to
me.=20

RPMs
http://www.steveshack.org/files/quickfix/quickfix-1.7.0-1.i386.rpm
http://www.steveshack.org/files/quickfix/quickfix-debuginfo-1.7.0-1.i386.rpm
http://www.steveshack.org/files/quickfix/quickfix-devel-1.7.0-1.i386.rpm


--=20
--
Steve Paul Shack			        sshack at steveshack dot org
GPG Fingerprint:          22C5 195E 0060 9EAF 0DFC  D933 93DC 4BC9 C429 53F6
http://www.steveshack.org

[Quickfix-developers] Required tag Missing

[Perez, J. <JP...@Cr...>]

Folks: 

I have come across a problem with the QuickFix Engine in that it 

1) Rejects a Cancel Replace Message indicating that a required tag is
missing. No required tag is missing in the message. A second problem
exists: Assume the Cancel Replace Message had a sequence number of 4. 

2) Since the Cancel Replace arrives with a sequence number of 4, and the
quick Fix engine improperly rejected the valid message. It doesn't
consume the fact that sequence number 4 arrived and was rejected. 

It then begins sending resend requests to the customer. 


Has anyone run into this problem and, if so, how can it be fixed? 

(Below, I changed the sender and target compids. The rest of the message
is intact.)
 
(8=FIX.4.1^A9=0228^A35=G^A115=SENDER^A34=4^A49=SENDER^A56=TARGET^A43=Y^A52=2
0040503-13:41:54^A122=20040503-12:02:12^A
109=100^A41=01043SDBs6900479S002^A11=01043SDBs6900479S005^A21=2^A18=1^A55=SU
NW^A48=SUNW^A22=3^A54=1^A38=200^A40=2
^A44=3.75^A59=6^A126=20040531-23:59:59^A47=A^A10=005^A)
<20040503-13:41:54, FIX.4.1:SENDER->TARGET, event>
  (Message 4 Rejected: Required tag missing)
<20040503-13:41:54, FIX.4.1:SENDER->TARGET, outgoing>
 
(8=FIX.4.1^A9=79^A35=3^A34=1696^A49=SENDER^A52=20040503-13:41:54^A56=TARGET^
A45=4^A58=Required tag missing^A10=078^A)

<20040503-13:41:54, FIX.4.1:SENDER->TARGET, incoming>
 
(8=FIX.4.1^A9=0240^A35=D^A115=SENDER^A34=5^A49=TARGET^A56=SENDER^A43=Y^A52=2
0040503-13:41:54^A122=20040503-12:35:57
^A11=010443CZv0096965S000^A109=SKBDVP^A1=100862317500^A21=2^A18=1^A55=MSFT^A
48=MSFT^A22=3^A54=2^A38=1180^A40=2^A
44=26.0^A15=USD^A59=6^A126=20040511-23:59:59^A47=A^A58=181610^A10=066^A)
<20040503-13:41:54, FIX.4.1:SENDER->TARGET, event>
  (MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 5 EXPECTED: 4)


John Perez
Crown Financial Group, Inc. 
201 459 9500 x 241 
DISCLAIMER
e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me and
permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout
thereof.

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The
sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
REGARDING PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
Crown Financial Group may, at its discretion, monitor and review the content
of all e-mail communications.

Re: [Quickfix-developers] FIXab.XML

[<Bjo...@ub...>]

Thanks Oren,

I will do that. I've already introduced a "ubitrade" header file to store
user defined tags.

By the way, I've added the the enums to the FIX.XML file. BUt I've also
added a comment line
<!-- --> to specify that these are specific entries.
QF didn't like it at all. I got an exception :
<value> does not have enum attribute in field " + name)
(DataDictionary.cpp).

Why is that?

Regards
Bjoern



                                                                                                                                       
                      Oren Miller                                                                                                      
                      <oren@quickfixeng        To:       Bjo...@ub...                                                 
                      ine.org>                 cc:       qui...@li...                                     
                                               Subject:  Re: [Quickfix-developers] FIXab.XML                                           
                      01/05/2004 17:02                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       




You don't have to.  The values are there to make their use more
readable in C++ so you can refer to them by their name instead of their
character.  You could define them in either one of these files, or
elsewhere.  Keep in mind if you regenerate, values.h is generated off
of FIX44.xml, so they could disappear from that file.  What I would
probably do though if they are custom enumerations, is create something
like a UbitradeValues.h and stick any of your custom values in there.
That way you have a separate location for all your custom values.  This
file you can keep in your own code base with your project. Then
whenever you upgrade QF you don't have to worry about re-adding those
values by changing or overwriting QF files.

--oren

On May 1, 2004, at 6:24 AM, Bjo...@ub... wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've a question concerning the modification of the FIX43.XML file.
> I would like to add some <enum> entries for the field
> "SecurityIDSource".
>
> Do I have to add them also in some QF header files as
> Deprecatedvalues.h
> and
> or values.h?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Bjoern
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle
> 10g.
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
>

Re: [Quickfix-developers] FIXab.XML

[Oren M. <or...@qu...>]

You don't have to.  The values are there to make their use more 
readable in C++ so you can refer to them by their name instead of their 
character.  You could define them in either one of these files, or 
elsewhere.  Keep in mind if you regenerate, values.h is generated off 
of FIX44.xml, so they could disappear from that file.  What I would 
probably do though if they are custom enumerations, is create something 
like a UbitradeValues.h and stick any of your custom values in there.  
That way you have a separate location for all your custom values.  This 
file you can keep in your own code base with your project. Then 
whenever you upgrade QF you don't have to worry about re-adding those 
values by changing or overwriting QF files.

--oren

On May 1, 2004, at 6:24 AM, Bjo...@ub... wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've a question concerning the modification of the FIX43.XML file.
> I would like to add some <enum> entries for the field 
> "SecurityIDSource".
>
> Do I have to add them also in some QF header files as 
> Deprecatedvalues.h
> and
> or values.h?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Bjoern
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 
> 10g.
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
>

[Quickfix-developers] FIXab.XML

[<Bjo...@ub...>]

Hello,

I've a question concerning the modification of the FIX43.XML file.
I would like to add some <enum> entries for the field "SecurityIDSource".

Do I have to add them also in some QF header files as Deprecatedvalues.h
and
or values.h?

Thanks in advance
Bjoern

Re: [Quickfix-developers] SecurityIDSource

[Oren M. <or...@qu...>]

No reason that I can see.  This will be fixed for the next release.

On Apr 29, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Bjo...@ub... wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I discovered a difference between QuickFix 1.7.0 and the FIX 4.3 
> definition
> of the
> tag SecurityIDSource. Within QuickFix it is defined as CHAR whereas 
> the FIX
> protocol
> definition defines it as a string with the remark 100+ are reserved for
> private security
> identifications.
>
> Well, the fix of this problem is rather simple but it would be nice to
> include the changes
> for the next QF release. Or is there a specific reason why the 
> definition
> is set to CHAR?
>
> Regards
>
> Bjoern Westerburg
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 
> 10g.
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
>

RE: [Quickfix-developers] RE: Logon-Mystery Disconnect

[Pedro S. <ps...@hi...>]

Hi,

we have experienced a similar problem. Our Initiator, in Quick FIX 1.7,
failed to connect every morning, with the simple message "Disconnecting...".
We destroy the Initiator at the end of the session and create a new one
every morning. We found out that something (maybe the FileStoreFactory) kept
the "Store" files locked, and the new Initator was unable to write to those
files when it starts in the morning, and disconnected immediately. When we
stop the process that hosts the Initiator, the files were unlocked and then
the Initiator connects without any problem. 
We haven't figure out yet what is keeping the files locked. If you have any
ideias, they would be appreciated.

I hope this helps.

Pedro


-----Original Message-----
From: qui...@li...
[mailto:qui...@li...] On Behalf Of
ili...@bn...
Sent: quinta-feira, 29 de Abril de 2004 17:21
To: qui...@li...
Subject: [Quickfix-developers] RE: Logon-Mystery Disconnect


Hi,

I just meant to say that I've experienced the exact same problem as you did.
I would receive a logon, send a logon and be disconnected immediately
afterwards. As far as my counterparty was concerned, I had terminated the
socket. The strange thing is: the second logon attempt would always succeed.

Just my 2 cents, sorry that I don't have a solution for you guys...

Cheers,
Ilyas




This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for the
addressees and is confidential. 
If you receive this message in error, please delete it and immediately
notify the sender. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination
or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal
approval. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. 
BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for
the message if modified. 

                ---------------------------------------------

Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le
"message") sont etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires et sont
confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci de le detruire
et d'en avertir immediatement l'expediteur. Toute utilisation de ce message
non conforme a sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale
ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse. L'internet ne
permettant pas d'assurer l'integrite de ce message, BNP PARIBAS (et ses
filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce message, dans
l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest
thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. 
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
Qui...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers

[Quickfix-developers] Need Help in Running examples

[WAJID B. <pak...@ho...>]

<html><div style='background-color:'><P>Hi, </P>
<P>I need some help in running the quick-fix examples, I see that there is not enough documentation provided for the example. Can any one clarify it a little. </P>
<P>Thank you<BR><BR>Wajid Bashir </P>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2740??PS=">Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium!</a> </html>

[Quickfix-developers] RE: Logon-Mystery Disconnect

[<ili...@bn...>]

Hi,

I just meant to say that I've experienced the exact same problem as you
did. I would receive a logon, send a logon and be disconnected immediately
afterwards. As far as my counterparty was concerned, I had terminated the
socket. The strange thing is: the second logon attempt would always
succeed.

Just my 2 cents, sorry that I don't have a solution for you guys...

Cheers,
Ilyas




This message and any attachments (the "message") is
intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. 
If you receive this message in error, please delete it and 
immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with 
its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole 
or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet
can not guarantee the integrity of this message. 
BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not 
therefore be liable for the message if modified. 

                ---------------------------------------------

Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le 
"message") sont etablis a l'intention exclusive de ses 
destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce 
message par erreur, merci de le detruire et d'en avertir 
immediatement l'expediteur. Toute utilisation de ce 
message non conforme a sa destination, toute diffusion 
ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite, sauf 
autorisation expresse. L'internet ne permettant pas 
d'assurer l'integrite de ce message, BNP PARIBAS (et ses
filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce 
message, dans l'hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie.

[Quickfix-developers] SecurityIDSource

[<Bjo...@ub...>]

Hello,

I discovered a difference between QuickFix 1.7.0 and the FIX 4.3 definition
of the
tag SecurityIDSource. Within QuickFix it is defined as CHAR whereas the FIX
protocol
definition defines it as a string with the remark 100+ are reserved for
private security
identifications.

Well, the fix of this problem is rather simple but it would be nice to
include the changes
for the next QF release. Or is there a specific reason why the definition
is set to CHAR?

Regards

Bjoern Westerburg

RE: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect

[Howard S. E. <ho...@ex...>]

I have just installed 1.7 on my test server and look forward to using it =
asap.  I appreciate the improvements being made, and do not mean to come =
off as an arm chair critic.

Here are the configuration settings I am using:

SocketAcceptPort=3D9100
SocketReuseAddress=3DY
FileStorePath=3D/usr/sys/logs
FileLogPath=3D/usr/sys/logs
BeginString=3DFIX.4.0
ConnectionType=3Dacceptor
UseDataDictionary=3DY
DataDictionary=3D/usr/sys/conf/FIX42.xml
ValidateFieldsOutOfOrder=3DY
ValidateFieldsHaveValues=3DN
CheckLatency=3DN
MaxLatency=3D120
ResetOnLogout=3DN
ResetOnDisconnect=3DN
StartTime=3D12:00:00
EndTime=3D23:00:00
TargetCompID=3DSERVER
SenderCompID=3DCLIENT

-----Original Message-----
From: Oren Miller [mailto:or...@qu...]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:49 AM
To: Howard S. Engelhart
Cc: qui...@li...
Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect


I'm not ignoring your requests for better logging.  It's been noted and  =

this will be improved.  Do keep in mind that the logging had been =20
greatly improved in 1.7.0, including events for many disconnection =20
scenarios.  This may shed light on your problem.  If you don't want to =20
upgrade, you can at least do a diff and add the new logging related =20
stuff from the new session class.

Also, if you can post your configuration file, that would probably be =20
helpful in trying to duplicate what you are seeing.

--oren

On Apr 29, 2004, at 8:49 AM, Howard S. Engelhart wrote:

> Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it's that.  I destroy my  =
=20
> FIX Application, Session, Log, etc objects and remove the logs on a =20
> nightly basis, so unless there's an initialization problem when these  =

> objects are created, I am pretty certain my sequence numbers are =20
> coming up 1,1 in the morning.  In the example below he comes in at =20
> SeqNum=3D1 and is disconnected.  4 minutes later he comes in at 2 and =
is =20
> allowed to log on, however qf logs that it expected SeqNum=3D1, =
received =20
> 2.  So it does not look to be a too low seq num issue.  Not to beat a  =

> dead horse, but again, adding a reason indicator to the =20
> "Disconnecting" message would go a long way to clearing up, if nothing =
=20
> else, at least why qf thinks it should be disconnecting the session.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miller, Oren [mailto:OM...@ri...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:22 AM
> To: Howard S. Engelhart; qui...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect
>
>
> This sounds like he may be logging in with a sequence number that is =20
> too low.  What will happen is he will attempt logons, get disconnected =
=20
> due to the sequence number being to low.  Every time he is sending a =20
> logon, he increments his sequence number until he eventually reaches =20
> the right one.  Perhaps yor sequence numbers arn't being reset when =20
> you think they are?
>
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard S. Engelhart <ho...@ex...>
> To: QuickFIX Questions (E-mail) =20
> <qui...@li...>
> Sent: Thu Apr 29 07:22:23 2004
> Subject: RE: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect
>
> Yes.  The enigmatic "Disconnecting" especially.  This morning I =20
> observed a repeat of the exact same behaviour as yesterday.  The =20
> client attempts the logon at 12:05 gmt is disconnected for reasons =20
> that I cannot fathom from the logs, and then successfully reconnects =20
> and logs on 4 minutes later.  If anyone has experience/insight into =20
> this, it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:05:16`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D238`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D2`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:09:10`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D237`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D3`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:09:10`112=3D3`10=3D202`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D4`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:10:14`112=3D4`10=3D200`
>
> 20040429-11:30:03 : Created session
> 20040429-12:05:16 : Disconnecting
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Received logon request
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Responding to logon request
> 20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 2 EXPECTED: 1
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
> 20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 3 EXPECTED: 1
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Received SequenceReset FROM: 1 TO: 4
> 20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too low RECEIVED: 1 EXPECTED: 4 PosDup: =
Y
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joerg Thoennes [mailto:Joe...@ma...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:00 AM
> To: Howard S. Engelhart
> Cc: QuickFIX Questions (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect
>
>
>>> On a side note, it would help to have a bit more verbosity in the
>>> event logging, particuarly where disconnects are concerned.  I
>>> would gladly volunteer my time towards putting this in if I can
>>> help.
>
> Yes, QF could be a lot more verbose in the event log, esp. for the
> following cases:
>
> 1. Rejected logon
> 2. Disconnect
> 3. Logout with user provided logout reason
> 4. Dropped messages fragments which fail body length or CRC check.
>
> Cheers, J=F6rg
>
> --=20
> Joerg Thoennes
>                                 http://macd.com
> Tel.: +49 (0)241 44597-24      Macdonald Associates GmbH
> Fax : +49 (0)241 44597-10      Lothringer Str. 52, D-52070 Aachen
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle =20
> 10g.
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id149&alloc_id=9966&op=3Dick
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle =20
> 10g.
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id149&alloc_id=9966&op=3Dclick
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
>

Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect

[Oren M. <or...@qu...>]

I'm not ignoring your requests for better logging.  It's been noted and =20=

this will be improved.  Do keep in mind that the logging had been =20
greatly improved in 1.7.0, including events for many disconnection =20
scenarios.  This may shed light on your problem.  If you don't want to =20=

upgrade, you can at least do a diff and add the new logging related =20
stuff from the new session class.

Also, if you can post your configuration file, that would probably be =20=

helpful in trying to duplicate what you are seeing.

--oren

On Apr 29, 2004, at 8:49 AM, Howard S. Engelhart wrote:

> Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it's that.  I destroy my  =
=20
> FIX Application, Session, Log, etc objects and remove the logs on a =20=

> nightly basis, so unless there's an initialization problem when these =20=

> objects are created, I am pretty certain my sequence numbers are =20
> coming up 1,1 in the morning.  In the example below he comes in at =20
> SeqNum=3D1 and is disconnected.  4 minutes later he comes in at 2 and =
is =20
> allowed to log on, however qf logs that it expected SeqNum=3D1, =
received =20
> 2.  So it does not look to be a too low seq num issue.  Not to beat a =20=

> dead horse, but again, adding a reason indicator to the =20
> "Disconnecting" message would go a long way to clearing up, if nothing =
=20
> else, at least why qf thinks it should be disconnecting the session.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miller, Oren [mailto:OM...@ri...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:22 AM
> To: Howard S. Engelhart; qui...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect
>
>
> This sounds like he may be logging in with a sequence number that is =20=

> too low.  What will happen is he will attempt logons, get disconnected =
=20
> due to the sequence number being to low.  Every time he is sending a =20=

> logon, he increments his sequence number until he eventually reaches =20=

> the right one.  Perhaps yor sequence numbers arn't being reset when =20=

> you think they are?
>
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard S. Engelhart <ho...@ex...>
> To: QuickFIX Questions (E-mail) =20
> <qui...@li...>
> Sent: Thu Apr 29 07:22:23 2004
> Subject: RE: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect
>
> Yes.  The enigmatic "Disconnecting" especially.  This morning I =20
> observed a repeat of the exact same behaviour as yesterday.  The =20
> client attempts the logon at 12:05 gmt is disconnected for reasons =20
> that I cannot fathom from the logs, and then successfully reconnects =20=

> and logs on 4 minutes later.  If anyone has experience/insight into =20=

> this, it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3DN=
`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:05:16`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D238`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D2`50=3DADMIN`43=3DN=
`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:09:10`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D237`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D3`50=3DADMIN`43=3DN=
`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:09:10`112=3D3`10=3D202`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3DY=
`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3DY=
`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`
> =
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D4`50=3DADMIN`43=3DN=
`52=3D20040429-=20
> 12:10:14`112=3D4`10=3D200`
>
> 20040429-11:30:03 : Created session
> 20040429-12:05:16 : Disconnecting
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Received logon request
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Responding to logon request
> 20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 2 EXPECTED: 1
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
> 20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 3 EXPECTED: 1
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
> 20040429-12:09:10 : Received SequenceReset FROM: 1 TO: 4
> 20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too low RECEIVED: 1 EXPECTED: 4 PosDup: =
Y
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joerg Thoennes [mailto:Joe...@ma...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:00 AM
> To: Howard S. Engelhart
> Cc: QuickFIX Questions (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect
>
>
>>> On a side note, it would help to have a bit more verbosity in the
>>> event logging, particuarly where disconnects are concerned.  I
>>> would gladly volunteer my time towards putting this in if I can
>>> help.
>
> Yes, QF could be a lot more verbose in the event log, esp. for the
> following cases:
>
> 1. Rejected logon
> 2. Disconnect
> 3. Logout with user provided logout reason
> 4. Dropped messages fragments which fail body length or CRC check.
>
> Cheers, J=F6rg
>
> --=20
> Joerg Thoennes
>                                 http://macd.com
> Tel.: +49 (0)241 44597-24      Macdonald Associates GmbH
> Fax : +49 (0)241 44597-10      Lothringer Str. 52, D-52070 Aachen
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle =20=

> 10g.
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id149&alloc_id=9966&op=3Dick
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
> Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle =20=

> 10g.
> Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id149&alloc_id=9966&op=3Dclick
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
>

RE: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect

[Howard S. E. <ho...@ex...>]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it's that.  I destroy my  =
FIX Application, Session, Log, etc objects and remove the logs on a =
nightly basis, so unless there's an initialization problem when these =
objects are created, I am pretty certain my sequence numbers are coming =
up 1,1 in the morning.  In the example below he comes in at SeqNum=3D1 =
and is disconnected.  4 minutes later he comes in at 2 and is allowed to =
log on, however qf logs that it expected SeqNum=3D1, received 2.  So it =
does not look to be a too low seq num issue.  Not to beat a dead horse, =
but again, adding a reason indicator to the "Disconnecting" message =
would go a long way to clearing up, if nothing else, at least why qf =
thinks it should be disconnecting the session.

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Oren [mailto:OM...@ri...]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:22 AM
To: Howard S. Engelhart; qui...@li...
Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect


This sounds like he may be logging in with a sequence number that is too =
low.  What will happen is he will attempt logons, get disconnected due =
to the sequence number being to low.  Every time he is sending a logon, =
he increments his sequence number until he eventually reaches the right =
one.  Perhaps yor sequence numbers arn't being reset when you think they =
are?

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


-----Original Message-----
From: Howard S. Engelhart <ho...@ex...>
To: QuickFIX Questions (E-mail) =
<qui...@li...>
Sent: Thu Apr 29 07:22:23 2004
Subject: RE: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect

Yes.  The enigmatic "Disconnecting" especially.  This morning I observed =
a repeat of the exact same behaviour as yesterday.  The client attempts =
the logon at 12:05 gmt is disconnected for reasons that I cannot fathom =
from the logs, and then successfully reconnects and logs on 4 minutes =
later.  If anyone has experience/insight into this, it would be greatly =
appreciated.

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:05:16`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D238`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D2`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D237`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D3`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`112=3D3`10=3D202`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`=

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`=

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D4`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:10:14`112=3D4`10=3D200`

20040429-11:30:03 : Created session
20040429-12:05:16 : Disconnecting
20040429-12:09:10 : Received logon request
20040429-12:09:10 : Responding to logon request
20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 2 EXPECTED: 1
20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 3 EXPECTED: 1
20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
20040429-12:09:10 : Received SequenceReset FROM: 1 TO: 4
20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too low RECEIVED: 1 EXPECTED: 4 PosDup: Y

-----Original Message-----
From: Joerg Thoennes [mailto:Joe...@ma...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Howard S. Engelhart
Cc: QuickFIX Questions (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect


>> On a side note, it would help to have a bit more verbosity in the
>> event logging, particuarly where disconnects are concerned.  I
>> would gladly volunteer my time towards putting this in if I can
>> help.

Yes, QF could be a lot more verbose in the event log, esp. for the=20
following cases:

1. Rejected logon
2. Disconnect
3. Logout with user provided logout reason
4. Dropped messages fragments which fail body length or CRC check.

Cheers, J=F6rg

--=20
Joerg Thoennes
                                http://macd.com
Tel.: +49 (0)241 44597-24      Macdonald Associates GmbH
Fax : +49 (0)241 44597-10      Lothringer Str. 52, D-52070 Aachen


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. =

Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.=20
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id149&alloc_id=8166&op=3Dick
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
Qui...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers

Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect

[Miller, O. <OM...@ri...>]

This sounds like he may be logging in with a sequence number that is too =
low.  What will happen is he will attempt logons, get disconnected due =
to the sequence number being to low.  Every time he is sending a logon, =
he increments his sequence number until he eventually reaches the right =
one.  Perhaps yor sequence numbers arn't being reset when you think they =
are?

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


-----Original Message-----
From: Howard S. Engelhart <ho...@ex...>
To: QuickFIX Questions (E-mail) =
<qui...@li...>
Sent: Thu Apr 29 07:22:23 2004
Subject: RE: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect

Yes.  The enigmatic "Disconnecting" especially.  This morning I observed =
a repeat of the exact same behaviour as yesterday.  The client attempts =
the logon at 12:05 gmt is disconnected for reasons that I cannot fathom =
from the logs, and then successfully reconnects and logs on 4 minutes =
later.  If anyone has experience/insight into this, it would be greatly =
appreciated.

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:05:16`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D238`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D2`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D237`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D3`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`112=3D3`10=3D202`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`=

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`=

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D4`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:10:14`112=3D4`10=3D200`

20040429-11:30:03 : Created session
20040429-12:05:16 : Disconnecting
20040429-12:09:10 : Received logon request
20040429-12:09:10 : Responding to logon request
20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 2 EXPECTED: 1
20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 3 EXPECTED: 1
20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
20040429-12:09:10 : Received SequenceReset FROM: 1 TO: 4
20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too low RECEIVED: 1 EXPECTED: 4 PosDup: Y

-----Original Message-----
From: Joerg Thoennes [mailto:Joe...@ma...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Howard S. Engelhart
Cc: QuickFIX Questions (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect


>> On a side note, it would help to have a bit more verbosity in the
>> event logging, particuarly where disconnects are concerned.  I
>> would gladly volunteer my time towards putting this in if I can
>> help.

Yes, QF could be a lot more verbose in the event log, esp. for the=20
following cases:

1. Rejected logon
2. Disconnect
3. Logout with user provided logout reason
4. Dropped messages fragments which fail body length or CRC check.

Cheers, J=F6rg

--=20
Joerg Thoennes
                                http://macd.com
Tel.: +49 (0)241 44597-24      Macdonald Associates GmbH
Fax : +49 (0)241 44597-10      Lothringer Str. 52, D-52070 Aachen


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. =

Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.=20
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id149&alloc_id=8166&op=3Dick
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
Qui...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers

RE: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect

[Howard S. E. <ho...@ex...>]

Yes.  The enigmatic "Disconnecting" especially.  This morning I observed =
a repeat of the exact same behaviour as yesterday.  The client attempts =
the logon at 12:05 gmt is disconnected for reasons that I cannot fathom =
from the logs, and then successfully reconnects and logs on 4 minutes =
later.  If anyone has experience/insight into this, it would be greatly =
appreciated.

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:05:16`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D238`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D2`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D237`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D3`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`112=3D3`10=3D202`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`=

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040429-12:09:10`122=3D20040429-12:09:10`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D015`=

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D4`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040429-12:10:14`112=3D4`10=3D200`

20040429-11:30:03 : Created session
20040429-12:05:16 : Disconnecting
20040429-12:09:10 : Received logon request
20040429-12:09:10 : Responding to logon request
20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 2 EXPECTED: 1
20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 3 EXPECTED: 1
20040429-12:09:10 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
20040429-12:09:10 : Received SequenceReset FROM: 1 TO: 4
20040429-12:09:10 : MsgSeqNum too low RECEIVED: 1 EXPECTED: 4 PosDup: Y

-----Original Message-----
From: Joerg Thoennes [mailto:Joe...@ma...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Howard S. Engelhart
Cc: QuickFIX Questions (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect


>> On a side note, it would help to have a bit more verbosity in the
>> event logging, particuarly where disconnects are concerned.  I
>> would gladly volunteer my time towards putting this in if I can
>> help.

Yes, QF could be a lot more verbose in the event log, esp. for the=20
following cases:

1. Rejected logon
2. Disconnect
3. Logout with user provided logout reason
4. Dropped messages fragments which fail body length or CRC check.

Cheers, J=F6rg

--=20
Joerg Thoennes
                                http://macd.com
Tel.: +49 (0)241 44597-24      Macdonald Associates GmbH
Fax : +49 (0)241 44597-10      Lothringer Str. 52, D-52070 Aachen

RE: [Quickfix-developers] logon message

[James C. D. <jc...@co...>]

The data is typically added to the logon message in the toAdmin callback.
 
Jim
 
James C. Downs
Connamara Systems, LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd
Suite 1627
Chicago, IL 60604
312 - 282 - 7746
www.connamara.com
 

  _____  

From: qui...@li...
[mailto:qui...@li...] On Behalf Of
Shivakumar Keshavamurthy
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:15 PM
To: qui...@li...
Subject: [Quickfix-developers] logon message



I have a requirement for customization of logon Message to add Raw Data. 

How do I change the logon message (add or remove fields ). Do I need to
write a separate constructor inside Logon.java?  How does this new
constructor get called from the engine.

Is there any way the java application client can decide when the Logon
Message is sent? 

thanks 
shivakumar 

[Quickfix-developers] logon message

[Shivakumar K. <Shi...@in...>]

I have a requirement for customization of logon Message to add Raw Data. =


How do I change the logon message (add or remove fields ). Do I need to =
write a separate constructor inside Logon.java?  How does this new =
constructor get called from the engine.

Is there any way the java application client can decide when the Logon =
Message is sent?

thanks
shivakumar

Re: [Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect

[Joerg T. <Joe...@ma...>]

>> On a side note, it would help to have a bit more verbosity in the
>> event logging, particuarly where disconnects are concerned.  I
>> would gladly volunteer my time towards putting this in if I can
>> help.

Yes, QF could be a lot more verbose in the event log, esp. for the 
following cases:

1. Rejected logon
2. Disconnect
3. Logout with user provided logout reason
4. Dropped messages fragments which fail body length or CRC check.

Cheers, Jörg

-- 
Joerg Thoennes
                                http://macd.com
Tel.: +49 (0)241 44597-24      Macdonald Associates GmbH
Fax : +49 (0)241 44597-10      Lothringer Str. 52, D-52070 Aachen

[Quickfix-developers] Logon-Mystery Disconnect

[Howard S. E. <ho...@ex...>]

QF Version 1.6

From time to time, quickfix appears to disconnect what appear to be =
valid logon attempts.  Unfortunately the event logging gives no =
indication for the reason.  For the session logged below, we have our =
server configured to accept connections after 12:00 UTC.  From what I =
can see the 12:05 logon attempt was valid, and should have been =
accepted.  I believe this is the actual cause of the Logon problem I =
posted.  Does anyone have any ideas as to why qf would have disconnected =
the 12:05 logon attempt?  On a side note, it would help to have a bit =
more verbosity in the event logging, particuarly where disconnects are =
concerned.  I would gladly volunteer my time towards putting this in if =
I can help.

Thanks,=20

Howard


Incoming Log
--------------------------------------------------------------
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040428-12:05:17`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D238`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D74`35=3DA`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D2`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040428-12:09:08`98=3D0`108=3D60`10=3D243`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D3`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040428-12:09:08`112=3D3`10=3D208`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040428-12:09:08`122=3D20040428-12:09:08`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D027`=

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D95`35=3D4`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D1`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
Y`52=3D20040428-12:09:08`122=3D20040428-12:09:08`123=3DY`36=3D4`10=3D027`=

8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D0`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D4`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040428-12:10:10`112=3D0`10=3D190`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D1`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D5`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040428-12:10:14`112=3D5`10=3D201`
8=3DFIX.4.0`9=3D68`35=3D0`49=3DCLIENT`56=3DSERVER`34=3D6`50=3DADMIN`43=3D=
N`52=3D20040428-12:11:16`112=3D0`10=3D199`

Event Log
--------------------------------------------------------------
20040428-11:30:03 : Created session
20040428-12:05:17 : Disconnecting
20040428-12:09:08 : Received logon request
20040428-12:09:08 : Responding to logon request
20040428-12:09:08 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 2 EXPECTED: 1
20040428-12:09:08 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
20040428-12:09:08 : MsgSeqNum too high RECEIVED: 3 EXPECTED: 1
20040428-12:09:08 : Sent ResendRequest FROM: 1 TO: 999999
20040428-12:09:08 : Received SequenceReset FROM: 1 TO: 4
20040428-12:09:08 : MsgSeqNum too low RECEIVED: 1 EXPECTED: 4 PosDup: Y

[Quickfix-developers] java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: isSetField

[Apichat B. <sar...@ly...>]

Hi,
     Last month, I had a double logout problem with quickfix 1.7.0 and Oren suggested me to use the one in CVS instead. So I did that and it solved my problem.
     However, recently, I had another problem with login into the session. After looking around for the solutions, I decided to update the source and it did solve the problem. However, I found this error instead:

INFO: fromApp:8=FIX.4.2
9=533
35=d
34=3
49=PATS
52=20040428-05:27:03
56=IBCFIX
146=12
311=RI
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200406
311=RI
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200408
311=RI
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200410
311=RI
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200412
311=RI
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200502
311=RI
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200504
311=RU
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200407
311=RU
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200409
311=RU
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200411
311=RU
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200501
311=RU
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200503
311=RU
308=AFET
310=FUT
313=200505
320=1083130023036
322=20040328-05:27:03.000
323=3
393=12
10=097

INFO   | jvm 1    | 2004/04/28 12:27:03 | java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: isSetField
INFO   | jvm 1    | 2004/04/28 12:27:03 | 	at quickfix.Group.isSetField(Native Method)
INFO   | jvm 1    | 2004/04/28 12:27:03 | 	at quickfix.fix42.SecurityDefinition$NoRelatedSym.isSetUnderlyingMaturityMonthYear(Unknown Source)
INFO   | jvm 1    | 2004/04/28 12:27:03 | 	at com.intelligentbrain.futureLens.recorder.app.FIX42MessageHelper.onMessage(FIX42MessageHelper.java:154)
INFO   | jvm 1    | 2004/04/28 12:27:03 | 	at quickfix.fix42.MessageCracker.crack42(Unknown Source)
INFO   | jvm 1    | 2004/04/28 12:27:03 | 	at quickfix.MessageCracker.crack(Unknown Source)
INFO   | jvm 1    | 2004/04/28 12:27:03 | 	at com.intelligentbrain.futureLens.recorder.app.Commander$Application.fromApp(Commander.java:629)
INFO   | jvm 1    | 2004/04/28 12:27:03 | Exception in thread "Thread-6" 
ERROR  | wrapper  | 2004/04/28 12:27:03 | JVM exited unexpectedly.

Also, there is another minor problem with the source in CVS. The location of quickfix_jni.dsw is changed. When I build it, it reports that the build is successfully but I cannot find the quickfix_jni.dll anywhere. So I copy it back to src/java and it works properly.  Will this cause the above bug? 

Best Regards,
Apichat

_____________________________
Apichat Banyatsupasil
Director of Software Development
Intelligent Brain Consulting Co., Ltd.
287/23-24 Surawong Rd 2nd Fl,
Suriyawong, Bangrak,
Bangkok 10500
Thailand
Office +66 (2) 635-7655, +66 (2) 635-6702
Fax  +66 (2) 635-7603
Cell +66 (9) 131-4009
URL  http://www.intelligentbrain.com










____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10

RE: [Quickfix-developers] Possible Rounding Errors

[James C. D. <jc...@co...>]

I'm not sure what purpose the significant digit rule serves in the spec and
I suspect that it might be somewhat antiquated. Probably the best approach
would be a config setting
 
 
Jim
 
James C. Downs
Connamara Systems, LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd
Suite 1627
Chicago, IL 60604
312 - 282 - 7746
www.connamara.com
 

  _____  

From: Oren Miller [mailto:or...@qu...] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:16 PM
To: James C. Downs
Cc: qui...@li...; 'Patrick Flannery'
Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Possible Rounding Errors


They may be using long doubles then. They can contain 19 significant digits.
But yeah, it looks like it violates the spec. The question is what to do
when this happens. Should we reject or allow it, or set it in the
configuration file.

On Apr 27, 2004, at 3:09 PM, James C. Downs wrote:



The FIX spec states that the float data type should have 15 significant
digits
250.300000000000010 has 18
 
I just did a quick test using this price and QF will reject it.
 
Jim
 
James C. Downs
Connamara Systems, LLC
53 W. Jackson Blvd
Suite 1627
Chicago, IL 60604
312 - 282 - 7746
www.connamara.com
 


From: qui...@li...
[mailto:qui...@li...] On Behalf Of Oren
Miller
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 2:29 PM
To: Patrick Flannery
Cc: qui...@li...
Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Possible Rounding Errors

Looking at this more closely, we have several tests that have trailing
zeros, and this works fine. It looks like there are just too many
significant digits. Are they running on a 64 bit architecture? I think the
only thing you can do right now is to change the type to a STRING in the
data dictionary. The alternative is to comment out the validation code for
doubles.

--oren

On Apr 26, 2004, at 8:23 AM, Patrick Flannery wrote:


Oren,

I am using quick Fix 4.2 version 1.7.  We are receiving execution reports
with AvgPrice and Last Price values to the effect of

250.300000000000010.  QucikFix generates a reject message referring to the
AvgPrice field of the execution report.  Would quick fix generate a reject
for the aforementioned value?  What can be done about it?  Thank you in
advance for your time.  Patrick

 

This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains
information that may be confidential and/or
copyright.  If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender
by reply email and immediately delete
this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email by anyone other
than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
prohibited. No representation is made that this email or any attachments are
free of viruses. Virus scanning is
recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.

Thank you.

For more information on CTC, LLC please visit our website at
http://www.chicagotrading.com.