|
FAST Protocol
< Previous Next >
Re: Fast SCP
Hanno Klein / Deutsche Börse Systems <>
1 Aug 2008 3:33AM ETFirst of all thanks to everybody for chipping in and commenting on my problem.
The most interesting case (which we have had in the past) is the addition of a field that is linked to functionality which can optionally be used by the member. It would be great if a member would not be forced to update the template and simply ignore the new field(s). This is the only way he can avoid retesting of his application. If the member needs the new functionality, he has to test this anyway and then a new template is not an issue.
For more complex changes such as field deletions, operator changes, data type changes, I do not see an actual benefit in terms of being able to skip re-testing.
Regards,
Hanno.
> our posts crossed. So you're suggesting a message length to handle
> *added* fields. So what about field operator changes, added fields to
> repeating groups, etc?
>
> > <-- would be a is_a relationship.
> > i/o implement this one would need , as suggested by Hanno, to carry
> > the length so that slicing can be operated properly
> >
> >> No.
> >>
> >> Given T1 <-- T2 and M encoded with T2
> >>
> >> If I have both T1 & T2, I can chose either.
> >>
> >> If I don't need the extra data added per T2, I can chose to use T1.
> >>
> >> By definition of T1 <-- T2 then a message encoded with T2 *must* be
> >> decodable by T1.
> >>
> >> If you decode M with T1, then you will "slice" your message somewhat,
> >> but that might be something you want, or still better that nothing
> >> when you don't have T2.
> >>
> >> This would allow senders to "evolve" their templates, giving the
> >> choice to receiver to use or not this "evolution"
> >>
> >>> Hm, I'm still not sure how this should be used. If you have both T1
> >>> and T2 then you can use the right template to decode. If you don't
> >>> have T2 then you're in trouble as T1 doesn't contain the info need?
> >>> Am I missing something?
> >>>
> >>> /Rolf
Fast SCP Dimitry London / Morgan Stanley 30 Jul 2008 10:16PM ET Re: Fast SCP David Rosenborg / Pantor Engineering AB 31 Jul 2008 3:28AM ET Re: Fast SCP Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering 31 Jul 2008 6:17AM ET Re: Fast SCP Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering 31 Jul 2008 9:05AM ET Re: Fast SCP Hanno Klein / Deutsche Börse Systems 31 Jul 2008 10:06AM ET Re: Fast SCP Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering 31 Jul 2008 10:15AM ET Re: Fast SCP Greg Orsini / Cameron Systems 31 Jul 2008 11:44AM ET Re: Fast SCP Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering 1 Aug 2008 2:06AM ET Re: Fast SCP Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering 1 Aug 2008 2:39AM ET Re: Fast SCP Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering 1 Aug 2008 3:13AM ET Re: Fast SCP
Hanno Klein / Deutsche Börse Systems 1 Aug 2008 3:33AM ET Re: Fast SCP Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering 1 Aug 2008 3:57AM ET Re: Fast SCP Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering 1 Aug 2008 4:10AM ET Re: Fast SCP Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering 1 Aug 2008 3:06AM ET Re: Fast SCP David Rosenborg / Pantor Engineering AB 1 Aug 2008 6:28AM ET Re: Fast SCP Jacob Northey / The LaSalle Technology Group 1 Aug 2008 8:21AM ET Re: Fast SCP David Rosenborg / Pantor Engineering AB 1 Aug 2008 9:33AM ET Re: Fast SCP Greg Orsini / Cameron Systems 1 Aug 2008 10:01AM ET Re: Fast SCP David Rosenborg / Pantor Engineering AB 1 Aug 2008 10:16AM ET Re: Fast SCP Greg Orsini / Orc Software w/CameronFIX 1 Aug 2008 10:32AM ET Re: Fast SCP David Rosenborg / Pantor Engineering AB 1 Aug 2008 10:58AM ET Re: Fast SCP Jean-Marie Sulmont / RTS 31 Jul 2008 10:19AM ET Re: Fast SCP Jean-Marie Sulmont / RTS 31 Jul 2008 10:41AM ET Re: Fast SCP David Rosenborg / Pantor Engineering AB 31 Jul 2008 11:10AM ET Re: Fast SCP Dimitry London / Morgan Stanley 7 Aug 2008 10:53PM ET
|
