Re: [Quickfixj-users] QuickFIX/J question

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

Hi Alvin,

The API is upward compatible from QF to QFJ. The QFJ implementation
usually lags QF to some extent. However, there haven't been any major
Session behavior or Java API gaps between them. The direction of QFJ
will more Java-oriented than QF. For example, the JdbcStore and JdbcLog
can work with any JDBC database although the QF implementations support
several specific databases and ODBC. JMX management capability is
planned for QFJ 1.1 and we are also investigating some advanced code
generation strategies that will support custom and even multiple message
class representations (post 1.1). Since QFJ doesn't use JNI it generally
works better for applications that must operate within advanced
classloader architectures (like application servers) or must be portable
across a wide range of platforms.

Steve

Alvin Wang wrote:
> QuickFIX/J Documentation: http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/
> QuickFIX/J Support: http://www.quickfixj.org/support/
>
> Hi, we are considering to migrate from QuickFIX to QuickFIX/J, and we have
> some basic questions before we act.
>
> 1. Does QuickFIX/J share the same API with QuickFIX's java version?
> 2. Does QuickFIX/J evolve in parallel with QuickFIX? How closely are they
> correlated in development / bug fixing? From the function and bug fixing
> point view, what is the QuickFIX/J's corresponding QuickFIX's version?
> 3. How do you like QuickFIX/J vs. QuickFIX? How is QuickFIX/J's
> performance? How stable is QuickFIX/J? What things does QuickFIX/J have but
> QuickFIX does not have? What things does QuickFIX have but QuickFIX/J does
> not have?
>
> Could anyone provide his/her opnions?
> Many thanks,
> Alvin
>