Re: [Quickfixj-users] SendingTime accuracy problem?!?

[dumitriu <dm...@co...>]

Steve,

Is there any way to get an indication that login failed because of this
sending time problem?  As far as I can tell, onLogout gets called, but there
is no obvious way to retrieve the reason for the logout.

Cheers,
Dan




Steve Bate wrote:
> 
> QuickFIX/J Documentation: http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/
> QuickFIX/J Support: http://www.quickfixj.org/support/
>> Does anyone know of a way to increase the amount of time a SendingTime
>> value is allowed to deviate from?  Toli says 2 minutes below...I would
>> like to increase this window...what is the point of this validation
>> anyway?
> 
> To add to what Toli has already written, the FIX specification requires
> the latency checks. I assume this is to avoid erroneous processing of
> old messages. In some cases, there may even be regulatory issues with
> executing excessively old order (for example). To get a more detailed
> answer, you could try posting  your question on the FPL forums. The two
> minute default is what is recommended in the specification.
> 
> If you are logging incoming messages, then you still have the raw
> messages that were sent. I'd recommend checking the log record
> timestamp (which is based on your local time) with the SendingTime
> field value in the messages. It's possible there is a problem with
> your counterparty's recovery implementation.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfixj-users mailing list
> Qui...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfixj-users
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Banzai-example-question--tp364931p740740.html
Sent from the QuickFIX/J mailing list archive at Nabble.com.