|
4.2 Changes
< Previous Next >
Re: Bust a fill from replaced order
Nicholas Duane
13 May 2008 4:30PM ET> The atomic-operation point is valid. Secondly, an order could lose it's
> place in the queue at the exchange if it's canceled and a new one is
> entered. In the scenario you have mentioned, once the replaced message
> iis received, the order will be represented by B. Anyway an execution
> bust refers to the original execution using the ExecID of the original
> execution.
>
> > First I would like to understand the benefits of cancel/replace over
> > canceling and creating a new order. Is it because I can send in one
> > "atomic" operation as opposed to sending in a cancel and having to
> > wait for a "canceled" report before I can send a new order?
> >
> > Secondly I'm wondering what is expected to happen if a execution
> > system bust happens on a fill for the original, pre-replaced, order
> > after the replace has already taken place? An example is:
> >
> > Order A placed Partial fill on order A Cancel/Replace sent to
> > replace A with B Receive replaced message Execution system busts
> > partial fill on A
> >
> > Thanks, Nick
So a client sending in a cancel/replace message should still be able to handle cancels for order A after receiving the replace message? I would guess B's cum quantity would be reduced when execution system bust one of A's fills?
Thanks,
Nick
Re: Bust a fill from replaced order
Nicholas Duane 13 May 2008 4:30PM ET
|
