Communication Diagrams

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

I’ve perused the 4.2 documentation and haven’t seen anything to describe a flow of communication between two hosts using FIX. Could someone inform me to the location of the protocol diagrams leading one through an order for example?

3

Take a look at "More Information", "Presentations" on the website and review Part 1 of a 4 part FIX and FIXML training class in Feb 2001. There are some diagrams in there.

> I’ve perused the 4.2 documentation and haven’t seen anything to describe a flow of communication between two hosts using FIX. Could someone inform me to the location of the protocol diagrams leading one through an order for example?
>
>
>

4

> Take a look at "More Information", "Presentations" on the website and review Part 1 of a 4 part FIX and FIXML training class in Feb 2001. There are some diagrams in there.

Excuse me, most protocol standards have the handshaking written as part of the standard. The definition of unbounded data fields doesn’t make a protocol standard solely, one must have a defined exchange of encapsulated data. This seems to be a major design deficiency and stumbling block to usage of FIXML, most likely differing implementations have already been developed to bring a product to market. Even though the diagram illustrate a basic concept, these point need to be written in stone to enable usage between differing firms.

Am I in error on this?

5

[ original email was from Witold Sames - witold@javtech.com ]
> I’ve perused the 4.2 documentation and haven’t seen anything to describe a flow of communication between two hosts using FIX. Could someone inform me to the location of the protocol diagrams leading one through an order for example?
>

A good place to look for the flow of an order would be Appendix D. While it’s not a graphical diagram, it pretty much lays out part of the business logic in an implicit fashion.

6

> A good place to look for the flow of an order
> would be Appendix D. While it’s not a graphical > diagram, it pretty much lays out part of the
> business logic in an implicit fashion.

Appendix D does not descibe the communication flow, which is necessary to define this standard as a protocol. Yes, we might be using the same data, i.e., words, but the grammar is completely missing. I’d refer you to accepted standards for networking or SCSI interfaces. Not only are the datagrams defined, but the consequences of sending such data is well defined.