[This message was posted by Hanno Klein of Deutsche Börse Systems <[email protected]> to the "5.0 SP2 Feedback" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/121. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/84768f84 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Yes and no. It is semantically not the best approach to mix functional elements (orders) with technical elements (partitions). The valid values of ApplID might also change frequently as partitions are adjusted to adapt to changing volumes of instruments being allocated to certain partitions. Maybe a generic ApplSubID field makes sense that could then also be used for something technical like a partition. Bundling two elements into the same field also requires the gateway to parse the string field to extract the numerical value of the partition identifier before being able to forward the request. An explicit field is always superior in terms of performance. > Couldn’t the ApplID (1180) be used to include the identifier of the > partition? Instead of having “O” as the ApplID for all partitions, one could > have ApplIDs of “O1”, “O2”, “O3”, etc. That would eliminate the need for the > custom field PartitionID (5948). [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en.
