Discussion Forums

FAST Protocol   < Previous   Next >

Re: FAST too complex?
Anders Furuhed / Pantor Engineering
9 Jan 2009 7:28AM ET

>
> IMHO the quality of a protocol specification can be determined from how
> many questions people ask about it ?., the fewer the questions the less
> ambiguous the specification is. You only have to look in these forums to
> see the number and variety of problems. If you can write a spec, send it
> to a developer in Australia and he/she can decode your data without
> needing to contact you for clarification, then the specification is very
> high quality.
>

One of David's main goals prompting him to write the document that became the 1.1 spec was to remove the ambiguity that he saw in the 1.0 days. A tutorial was intentionally left outside the core document (and has yet to materialize).
If the spec is ambiguous by e.g. leaving out details or using language that is open to interpretation, that is a problem that should be addressed with an update to the document.
Let's distinguish between the document being a non-ambiguous specification or not (can someone in Australia get an implementation right with only the specification document available) and the need for a tutorial and/or a reference implementation that would make life much easier for implementors. I'm not saying the latter is not important.

FAST too complex?
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   3 Dec 2008 2:42PM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Majkara Majka / me   3 Dec 2008 5:44PM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   4 Dec 2008 3:58AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Majkara Majka / me   5 Dec 2008 6:42PM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Anders Furuhed / Pantor Engineering   6 Dec 2008 2:57AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Hanno Klein / Deutsche Börse Systems   4 Dec 2008 4:23AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Jim Northey / The LaSalle Technology Group   4 Dec 2008 4:46AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Rich Shriver / Jordan & Jordan   4 Dec 2008 10:16AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Glenn McClements   4 Dec 2008 12:06PM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
David Rosenborg / Pantor Engineering AB   4 Dec 2008 5:44PM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   7 Dec 2008 3:12AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Kevin Houstoun   4 Dec 2008 9:08AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Rufus Me / Self   5 Dec 2008 2:58AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
David Rosenborg / Pantor Engineering AB   5 Dec 2008 3:26AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Daniel May / SpryWare, LLC   9 Dec 2008 3:02PM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Rufus Me / Self   6 Dec 2008 4:48AM ET

Yes
William Hooper / NA   23 Dec 2008 8:30AM ET

Re: Yes
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   23 Dec 2008 9:49AM ET

Re: Yes
William Hooper / NA   24 Dec 2008 10:30AM ET

Re: Yes
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   24 Dec 2008 2:14PM ET

Re: Yes
Clive Browning / Rapid Addition Ltd   24 Dec 2008 4:52PM ET

Re: Yes
Ravi Ravisankar / IBM   23 Dec 2008 8:55PM ET

Re: Yes
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   24 Dec 2008 12:59AM ET

Re: Yes
Ravi Ravisankar / IBM   25 Dec 2008 9:39PM ET

Supporting OPRA
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   26 Dec 2008 2:02AM ET

Re: Supporting OPRA
Ravi Ravisankar / IBM   29 Dec 2008 10:39AM ET

Re: Yes
Hanno Klein / Deutsche Börse Systems   28 Jan 2009 5:37AM ET

Re: Yes
William Hooper / NA   24 Dec 2008 10:46AM ET

Re: Yes
Rufus Me / Self   28 Dec 2008 8:43PM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Sebastien Fortas / Societe Generale   24 Dec 2008 1:30PM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   25 Dec 2008 2:35AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Michael Wynne / Michael Wynne & Co   9 Jan 2009 6:39AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
David Rosenborg / Pantor Engineering AB   9 Jan 2009 7:23AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Anders Furuhed / Pantor Engineering   9 Jan 2009 7:28AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   9 Jan 2009 9:50AM ET

Re: FAST too complex?
Rolf Andersson / Pantor Engineering   17 Jan 2009 12:48PM ET