Christoph John
Christoph John
In my opinion it does not make sense to impose restrictions on the sequence number of the Logon message when the intention is to reset the sequence numbers anyway. This...
I think this would be a sensible enhancement. But I guess this is no easy task since in my opinion MINA is somewhat intertwined into QFJ. :)
AFAIK the FIX spec does not tell anything about what happens when messages are sent to a session that is not in existence. The session comes into existence at `StartTime`....
@fedor-prive , sorry for the late reply. Personally speaking I have to admit that I have been affected by this behaviour (store gets lost outside of session time) a few...
@ppmg , sorry but that SO question is not exactly this problem. There the problem was that the session was reset on every Logon (`ResetOnLogon=Y`), effectively removing all messages from...
Configuration parameter `ValidateFieldsOutOfOrder` not working when header fields found in body part
@jacques0803 well, I think there needs to be at least *some* ordering. There are places in the code that try to access header fields, e.g. for fields that are needed...
Configuration parameter `ValidateFieldsOutOfOrder` not working when header fields found in body part
@jacques0803 there was a comment from you yesterday but it is gone now?!
Configuration parameter `ValidateFieldsOutOfOrder` not working when header fields found in body part
Hi @jacques0803 having a brief glance at https://github.com/quickfix-j/quickfixj/blob/48ea859f55904643a9059b91b37611e4424c6248/quickfixj-core/src/main/java/quickfix/DefaultSessionFactory.java#L300 it looks like the application dictionaries are created with the same settings via https://github.com/quickfix-j/quickfixj/blob/48ea859f55904643a9059b91b37611e4424c6248/quickfixj-core/src/main/java/quickfix/DefaultSessionFactory.java#L316 So to me it looks like the app...
Configuration parameter `ValidateFieldsOutOfOrder` not working when header fields found in body part
Hi @jacques0803 thanks for your comment. I think your proposal makes sense. To make sure it does not break any existing functionality it would be appreciated If you could create...
Hi @philipwhiuk @esanchezros personally I would prefer to have each feature in a single PR, so if it is OK with you (@philipwhiuk) then I would be happy if we...