Hey there Def I don't understand why it's so difficult to give API access from the TWS front end. What people want is just automation, so a simple COM object or an Automation server is enough. IB programmers should be able to do this in one night... I am considering paying 25$ r/t to zap just because of speed and automation via perpetrader... Any hope IB will provide soon a simple solution other than ctci/fix to the automation problem?
ctci/fix already exists. a number of brokers, banks, hedge funds as well as active traders use it. there are monthly miniums which go against commisions to use it. eventually it will be rolled out for easier and cheaper access. i imagine issues such as controlling the number of orders (you do not want any one overloading the system) and risk management need to be considered. if you want more info send me an e-mail and i'll point you to an account exec.
Thanks Def for your response. I agree that the FIX interface is what institutions need but i also think it is too much for the average individual futures trader. Even if minimum commishes req are relaxed what about the arrangements for the T1 connection, special hardware etc. etc. I want a quick, effective solution now not one or two months in the future. It is my money I need to trade not customer's money. With a COM object IB would not have to worry about some inept programmer overloading the network because everything goes through TWS. The frequent writing to the HardDisk problem would be solved too because people will be able to read data directly from TWS, and there would be no need to force TWS to write info to disk before reading it. And as I said, writing and supporting it would be extremely simple, I can write the code in a couple of days, for free, if IB send me its TWS source code. If license fees or $$ is what IB is worried about, remember that a lot of people is paying much higher commisions elsewhere just because of lack of a simple way of automate things in TWS.
buzzy, one other thing comes to mind that may be an issue - the price feed. exchanges and data providers are naturally concerned about the "illegal" disemination of their quotes. If the interface was opened up this might be another area that needs to be addressed.
That's a good point Def. I would be very happy with simple 'order only' API. no quotes. just the ability to buy or sell with all the order types available in IB. And confirmation of executions. that's it that's all. This would be acceptable since several brokers offer API that way. You can link them to eSignal or other data providers (!). I remember IB's objection to QT. And that's fine. But it is not what we are talking about. And I see more and more people asking for this feature. (I swear I did not register under another name to ask for it ) tntneo
I too, would like to offer support for automating my trading system in Metastock. This realtime futures system needs a way to input Expert Alerts into TWS automatically. Most of what I have seen is directed towards Tradestation, and if I used TS I would probably be there, but I use Metastock. Push hard for this automation....the next logical step for an e-broker to pursue.
I believe that IB could answer 99% of our API requests by providing order entry (like what's already provided in the baskets) and order confirmation. That's it ! On a technical note: please avoid COM objects or anything platform specific. Just provide a socket/port that we can connect to. That's trivial to do in Java and requires no special code in TWS or our end. Most of us already have our own quote feeds, and would never want to trade off of data re-distributed through our broker anyway.
Hey everybody, thanks for the feedback. When I talked about "data reading" i did not mean price data reading i meant internal data reading like open positions, trade status (confirmed, etc.) account status, network status and the like. In any case I don't think anybody would be interested in redistributing IB's price data, there are already other, cheap and very good data providers who on top of that offer free API's. And, yes, order execution is all i am asking for, and i don't want to save my account status to hard disk to read it. I don't care if it's a COM object, a socket or whatever, as long as it does not require any intervention, it's stable, easy to program and debug, and does not require to waste trading capital in fancy hardware.
Def, Here is a e-mail i sent IB, which netted a auto response- so I don,t know if they read them all: Dear IB, I just installed the JTWS version 731f after using the previous version and the prior 731 e. There has been a change or it is a bug in the order line which is a problem and leads to ambigious information being feed back to me, and misplaced orders. I will describe the problem. When clicking on the bid in the order line for a sell or short the line that then dropes down and shows the "SELL" box is pink, not bright red like the previous versions, and when clicking on the ask to buy the drop down order line with the "BUY" box is very light green, not the bright dark green we are used to. When transmiting the box that is susposed to turn green for a live order is very lite washed out green, and when cnceling the order the Red cancle confirm box is pink- not red. The color box that is supposed to be magenta for a lost connection or in transit is almost the same color as the pink. This leads to the problem that when a order is trying to be cancled confusing colors will result if the order is not confirmed cancled- such as when the link goes down to the ECN. I may think it is cancled but it could be a lost connection- because the colors are all different now. Also a quick glance at the colors of the order line for the buy or sell is not clear because the colors are now muted. I have learned that the order line is highlited, if I click on another line after clicking a but or sell the colors in the order line appear correctly. This change is bad, wrong, not good. The order line in itself is different than the quote line- meaning that is easly differanted. Pleas disable this highlite of the orderline, or make it opptionable, I see no use for it, and a detrement. I talked to Steve at IB on Fri 10-19, and he said that he had taken 4 calls complaining about this today. Thanks The version 735g is out- did they correct this problem? Thanks, flier
i'll xlate the help desk answer: the new release should solve the problem. looks like different graphic cards or PC's display things differently. in any event, try the upgrade.