Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in a FIX Protocol Library?
From: Neil Groves (neil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-15 19:41:22
On 15 January 2015 at 20:33, Eelis <eelis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2015-01-12 23:55, Marius Dobrea wrote:
>> Let me know what you think.
> It is very unlikely that a Boost FIX library would make the specific
> combination of interface/efficiency/complexity/configurability/extensibility
> compromises/tradeoffs/choices that suit the specific requirements we have
> for a FIX library at the trading company I work for. Nor would we benefit
> from integration with our other libraries and conventions. So a Boost FIX
> library would probably not be of much use to us.
I suspect that the above comment is true of most of the target audience.
The deficiencies in the existing open-source libraries would be of
significance primarily to those seeking to have edge in their
It additionally would have the effect of making it harder for some of us to
work on Boost. I have been able to get IP amendments to employment
contracts because I have been able to show that Boost is not in competition
with my employer. If Boost contained solutions to problems in the financial
domain I would have been forced to decide between resigning from my job or
continuing with Boost. I don't think I am alone in having had difficulty
convincing my employer to make IP alterations to allow me to work on Boost.
I am grateful that my recent employers (Aris, GETCO, and Tibra) have been
prepared to go through the time and expense to provide accommodation to
allow me to continue to contribute. I worry that if we start to include
libraries that are for specific business domains that we would create
barriers for programmers that want to work on Boost.
I'm all for the development of a better open-source FIX library, but not as
part of Boost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk