Re: [Quickfixj-users] Adding qualifier to quickfix Message

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

> Yes.  The only reason the qualifier was added is because of a counter
> party that had different subsystems that were only differentiated by
> connectivity and otherwise share identical session identification.  I
> would not recommend ever using it unless a counterparty forces you
> into the situation and is too stubborn to do anything about it.  It
> is intended strictly as an internal identifier.
>
> I'm not really sure how SubID and LocationID solve the same problem
> as they don't do anything to uniquely identify a session since
> multiple subid and locationid combinations can be sent through a
> session.

Do you have pointers in the spec related to this? The thirdparty
routing fields seem to imply that the subId and locationId can
be used for routing at the session protocol level. The session
protocol would only know how to route between sessions so it seemed
to me that subId and locationId were being used as optional parts
of a session identifier. I agree there is nothing to prohibit using
those fields for application level purposes as well although
the fields are defined as part of the session protocol. My experience
has been that counterparties used them for session identification
purposes but I know there are many variations of FIX usage.

> In this case, however, subids are the appropriate solution.

A possible approach would be to support subId and locationId as
identification fields if they are specified in the session settings.
Otherwise, those fields would be ignored for routing purposes (party-
to-party or third-party) and just passed to the application.

Steve