|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Tony Haas wrote:
> What you are stating is precisely the problem and reason
> for my concern. I keep hearing from techheads that the BMI
> data transmission format is antiquated. Suppose BMI decides
> to re-engineer their data transmission not only to comply
> with the Y2K requirements but to compress more data into their
> transmission bandwidth. Kill 2 birds with one stone. How
> closely will Omega and BMI work together on this? And is this
> the reason for the delay of the new Server and TS5? I'm
> afraid that the engineering and testing and re-engineering and
> re-testing will stretch into late 1998 - early 1999. I don't
> want to be beta testing BMI and TS on Jan 3, 2000.
This issue has nothing particularly to do with the year 2000. All data feed
vendors modify their data transmission formats from time-to-time. I am more
familiar with changes DBC Signal has made in recent years than with what
others have done, but they all have made changes.
I wrote a server in 1985 that has a BMI datafeed decoder. It was necessary
to make several changes over the years that followed as BMI changed their
transmission format. I wrote a server in 1994 that receives and decodes a
DBC Signal datafeed. It has been necessary to modify it several times since
to maintain compatibility with changes DBC Signal has made to their
transmission format.
Omega has had to do the same thing for each datafeed they directly support.
Why should we suddenly start worrying now that they won't do that any more?
Even if they did stop doing it, someone else could supply a substitute
server that would be fully compatible with TradeStation. I have no plan or
intention to do it, because I have no reason to think it will be necessary,
but I could have my own server linked to TradeStation very quickly if I
needed to.
There is very little reason for concern.
-Bob Brickey
Scientific Approaches
sci@xxxxxxxxxx
|