Imported from previous forum
Hi All, One of the things I think would be nice is if the FIXT information was separated from the FIX 5.n information in the repository; the way that things work now, each message in a FIX 5.n directory of the repository is bound to a FIXT.1.1 header/trailer. I think it would make more sense for FIXT versions to be provided in a separate set of files, the same way all the independent FIX application layer versions are.
Russ,
This is interesting - technically they are separated in the repository.
There is a separate FIXT.1.1 repository (which I know was not bundled in the last release - will try and rectify that within the next few days). Actually if you look at the FIXT.1.1 Errata - there is a concept of having the StandardHeader and Trailer act as the interface between the session layer and the application layer and as such we maintained visibility of the headers to the application layer. We also providing a mapping table (which I agree needs to be codified in the repository) from the FIXT.1.1 headers to previous FIX.4.0-FIX.4.4 headers. The mapping between FIXT.1.1 and FIX5.0 - FIX.5.0SP2 headers is trivial as they are identical.
As part of the FIX metamodel we are proposing for FPL we should very specifically define the relationship between the layers and if the way I proposed Standard Header visibility for FIXT.1.1 and FIX.5.0XXX is the correct one.
Hi All,
One of the things I think would be nice is if the FIXT information was
separated from the FIX 5.n information in the repository; the way that
things work now, each message in a FIX 5.n directory of the repository
is bound to a FIXT.1.1 header/trailer. I think it would make more sense
for FIXT versions to be provided in a separate set of files, the same
way all the independent FIX application layer versions are.