|
FAST Protocol
< Previous Next >
Re: Formalizing the FAST 1.0 Specification
Jim Northey / Jordan and Jordan
19 Apr 2006 12:11AM ET Well I think my initial foray into formalization scared more folks. No one came back saying they were enlightened. We seem to be having some luck with UML static structure diagrams, both in presentations and within the SCP 1.0 proposal. The UML approach might work out okay. Haven't given up entirely on XBNF, ABNF, or EBNF yet- just set in on the shelf for a little while until we get a FAST 1.1 specification (documentation release only) out the door.
> Sound like an interesting idea. Have you had a chance to test some
> more on FAST?
>
> Thx, Rolf
>
> > Came up with a proposed grammar based upon the EBNF grammar that is
> > used by the W3C to define XML with some useful extensions from ABNF,
> > which is used to define SMTP and other Internet protocols by the IETF,
> > plus a couple of other bells and whistles thrown in, including the
> > ability to define macros or functions - similar to the way alot of
> > Python compiler generators are implemented now. Seems to be useful in
> > helping to tighten down the spec. I put the language definition up on
> > the MDOWG site in the publicly accessible file: http://fixprotocol.or-
> > g/documents/2504/FIX_XBNF_GrammarProposal_20060407.doc
> >
> > I am hoping that folks will rip to shreds.
Re: Formalizing the FAST 1.0 Specification
Jim Northey / Jordan and Jordan 19 Apr 2006 12:11AM ET
|
