fixengine at both ends?

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

hi all
I am just a biggener in fix…
i have a doubt over having fix engines at both ends.is it really necessary to have fix engines at both ends i.e., both at sell side and buy side.
if we r doing online trading through internet and is it not sufficient to have a fix engine/server to support at both ends.That is from client side(internet) to fixserver to broker server and viceversa.
and what is simulator about?is it for checking fixml…
can anybody help me about java for fix.

thx
nagesh

3

FIX defines both message syntax/format and a real-time session level transport. In order to establish and maintain the FIX session level, you need a FIX engine on either end. It is certainly possible to accept and send messages in various syntax/formats including FIX syntax via mechanisms other than the FIX session layer (e.g. HTTP/POST, however, we do not define those.

There is a significant benefit to using the FIX session layer as it allows you to "communicate" (or "connect") to multiple counterparties in a consistent way without incremental effort. A common message data format provides the benefit of developing systems which can "process" data from multiple counterparties in a consistent way. Combining the two together (as FIX does) enables automated processing into/out of Order Management Systems.

> hi all
> I am just a biggener in fix…
> i have a doubt over having fix engines at both ends.is it really necessary to have fix engines at both ends i.e., both at sell side and buy side.
> if we r doing online trading through internet and is it not sufficient to have a fix engine/server to support at both ends.That is from client side(internet) to fixserver to broker server and viceversa.
> and what is simulator about?is it for checking fixml…
> can anybody help me about java for fix.
>
> thx
> nagesh
>