Re: [Quickfixj-users] repeating group problem

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

> Yes, the messages are decoupled, the fields are not.  It's not really
> been much of a problem though since when using non typesafe methods
> the messages don't care what the field is as long as the number and
> type are correct.  I guess it is conceivable future versions of fix
> could change the names or types of the core session fields, but I
> don't think it's very likely.   Theoretically this could be decoupled
> as well, though if any of those fields are missing you don't really
> have a FIX session anymore.  Perhaps that would be a legitimate thing
> to do if you plan on using another transport as made possible by FIX
> 5.0.

I'm exploring the possibility of packaged message representations
for various flavors of FIX. The existing generated representations
would be just one option. I'm also thinking it would be an option to 
use the generic messages without any code generation at all.

>...
> > My impression was that Alvin didn't want to give up all type safety,
> > but wanted a message representation with more abstractions for common
> > aspects of the currently generated message classes. Personally, I
> > would just use the message objects directly as you've suggested.
> 
> Yeah, I think so to, I'm just not sure how that would be
> accomplished.  Perhaps an example would be helpful.  The problem is
> of course that messages change pretty significantly between versions
> sometimes.  Fields get added, removed, their type changes, groups are
> added, groups are modified etc. etc.

Examples of message overlap are the NewOrderSingle and NewOrderList.
Although that could be extracted to a common base class, I agree with
you that it would probably be too much work to develop and maintain.

Steve