"Chris Jack" <chris_jack_at_msn.com> wrote in message
news:648c9f62.0309030738.45743654_at_posting.google.com...
> "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_no_spam.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:<Jlb5b.254239$cF.79644_at_rwcrnsc53>...
> > I thought in an earlier post you said that this was an application from
a
> > vendor and you don't have control over it. Thus it becomes a vendor
> > problem. You should contact the vendor and find out how they are going
to
> > fix it. Clearly, they did a straight port and that is just plain
moronic.
> > One should take full advantage of whatever tool you buy. Put pressure
on
> > the vendor.
> > Jim
>
> This _is_ a vendor application - I have to deal with the
> implementation of it. The problem is substantially (but not
> completely) fixed in the next version, but that is not a solution, for
> the 2 clients where I am implementing it, for at least a year.
>
> The vendor is aware of the problem, but cannot practically do anything
> to fix the current version.
>
> Regards
> Chris
I think you mean the vendor has the ability to fix this version, but will
not. (clearly the ability is there, they fixed the next version)
Jim
Received on Wed Sep 03 2003 - 20:51:25 CDT
