Quote from nitro:
Gann,
What you are asking is unfair. You have had years to think about the problem.
Also, I looked at your code. Some of your QF code looked hacked, not engineered. One suggestion is to surround all your comments with #region OldImplememtion #endregion. That would make your code easier to read. Even that is probably messy, since if you are using source control, and good comments in the checkin, you can go back and look at why you did things the way you did, and changes you made, there. You can always tell programmers that either work on one man teams, or are egocentric and don't care about the next person tha has to maintain their code. Code should be a pleasure to read. Like a novel.
Finally, optimizations to QuickFIX in my experience (which is limited since I don't use QuickFIX) is not to optimize the client code, but to optimize the communications module.
Things like this are horribe:
Code:[b]public void sendNOSMarket(string symbol, string side, int size, long OrdID)[/b] { string[] currency; [b]currency = symbol.Split('/');[/b] or if (mdupdateaction.getValue() == [b]'2'[/b]) [b]Console.WriteLine("Enter");[/b]
Why would you hardwire code like that in an FIX client? What does 2 mean? Why are you passing four parameters instead of an object of type OrderParameters (which would then allow you to inherit for each case where the symbol representation changes)? Why use Console.WriteLine that go away when code is compiled release? Use Tracer and listeners and then you can log errors no matter what.
Was I asking you?
OK... there's only a handful of people in ET who realizes the issue with QuickFIX's design. Especially, from the code I posted.
...
I'm going to be very protective/defensive...
1. It's a copy/paste of the prototype of what I've written 3 years ago. Considering that I know nitro in person, I tried hiring the dude for a low 6 digit but he refused. Now, I can see that I can't afford to hire him for his true intrinsic value. (Even though, he sucks at selling himself) The reason is he's a top notch Financial IT. No more to add, except that I appreciate his posts/contribution in ET. Seriously, last thing I want is an expert Financial IT replying to my posts.
That said, his reply is complete relevant because he's extremely experienced regarding this matter. Seriously, there's only a handful of people who has the potential to conclude with QuickFIX's design flaws from my codes.
2. The post I made was done based on the fact that the OP is a junior IT. I expected him to be naive about general FIX specifications and QuickFIX. Even if the OP came head-on, I was planning on going into FAST and FIX 5.0 but it's now irrelevant (C'mon... I've been in ET for quite sometime... I can expect the competency and their answers I get from people based on their original posts... hence I'm look at like a troll and flamer...)
3. My final conclusion, which I was trying to get at with my planned series of post, was that the dude(OP) is missing the point regarding his reply towards rosy2. It's not like school where your professor tells you what to do. In a professional environment, you're given a "subjective" task and you have a bunch of people criticizing you about how you approached it (and that's how one learns to work in a professional environment).
Anyways... nitro... thanks for spoiling my planned series of contribution. I'll end my post in this thread here... I hate posting in your thread, you get me good... Considering the OP, it may not have helped him by overwhelming the reply. But it help ET's ATS forums...
I really don't know... really... I don't know if your feedback is good...
