|
FAST Protocol
< Previous Next >
Re: Weigh-in please - Template format: XML and/or Compact Notation
Oren Miller / QuickFIX
19 Apr 2006 4:38PM ETI don't think that the verbosity argument holds water. Even if the XML message would be sent in band, it is 1) sent only once, 2) sent at a time when no market data is being sent anyway (since it must first be processed before any can be accepted). I really don't know what to say about an XML parser "not belonging" in a market data application. That doesn't even make sense to me. Can someone clarify?
In my view, the Compact Notation is confusing and hard to understand in comparison to the XML format. It would also require a custom parser. I don't really see it's advantage since compactness doesn't seem to help in any way. So all I see are the disadvantages of a compact format without any of the benefits since it is sent either out of band, or would be sent in band very infrequently.
So my preference would be to see a format based on a well supported standard such as XML or YAML.
I also do think it *is* important to have a standard, or at least recommended format. Of course anyone can implement their own format for whatever reason, but I think the ability to share these files is key. In any case, my view is we pick one format and run with it. I don't see the value in two formats.
> We need to finalize how templates are represented as part of FAST 1.1
> (the documentation release that clarifies the current FAST 1.0
> functionality) and includes the Session Control Protocol v1.0 that is
> being reviewed now.
>
> There are a couple of proposals the XML proposal from Pantor that is
> documented in the TD specification. And the compact notation that
> initially appeared in Implicit Tagging and is represented in the FAST
> Basic User's Guide.
>
> So we have some choices: XML Only? Compact Notation Only? XML + Compact
> Notation as alternatives.
>
> My view is I don't have a problem with XML and a compact notation
> version. I think there are some reasonable arguments against having to
> have XML as part of the market data application. Probably equal
> arguments for it.
>
> Either way MDOWG decides to go - my recommendation is that we uncouple
> the definition of templates from a specific implementation, be it XML or
> Compact Notation.
>
> What do others think? There are arguments that Compact Notation does
> not have all the capabilities required. There are views that XML is a
> bit to verbose for high volume market data applications, even though
> they are only being used to define templates and are not being used to
> transmit data.
Re: Weigh-in please - Template format: XML and/or Compact Notation
Oren Miller / QuickFIX 19 Apr 2006 4:38PM ET
|
