|
FAST Protocol
< Previous Next >
Re: Nested Group questions
Jim Northey / Jordan and Jordan
9 Apr 2006 10:41AM ETRolf - this is the way we interpreted the specification as well- that it does not state the levels of nesting explicitly. From a specification process - as FAST 1.0 is already released - it seems like we have to clarify FAST 1.0 and indicate that the 1.0 specification is silent on this point. We can then as part of MDOWG work discern a direction and once that consensus is achieved we can revise the FAST 1.0 documentation to say the "intent is to provide this capability in a later version of FAST". I think it is valuable to include intent and some forward pointers (assuming we have achieved consensus) to help implementers.
From our perspective - I think we would want to fast track this (no pun intended) - I guess that is inappropriate - our opinion is that this should be a priority - don't know all the other priorities so can't offer an opinion on ranking along side the other work that needs to be done.
> This is a very relevant question.
>
> I don't think so. The issue hasn't been discussed in detail.
>
> The spec doesn't contain a complete treatise of the subject.
>
> The POC project implemented one level of nesting within messages to
> handle MD repeating groups.
>
> We've implemented full multi-level nesting at Pantor for the FAST
> Tunnel, but I expect that we'll need to update our impl to track the
> standard as the standard matures.
>
> Dave, Greg, Wei, it would be interesting to hear what you guys at
> TransactTools, Cameron, and Nyfix respectively are aiming for?
>
> > Is the general consensus that the FAST 1.0 specifies / includes full
> > multiple level nesting of groups including repeating groups?
Re: Nested Group questions
Jim Northey / Jordan and Jordan 9 Apr 2006 10:41AM ET
|
