Re: Reports Background engine failures
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:16:30 GMT
DA Morgan wrote:
> Preston wrote:
> > sybrandb_at_hccnet.nl wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:25:50 GMT, "Jerry Alan Braga"
> >><jerry.braga_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > but In oracle's infinate wisdom they removed client/server
> > > > support for forms (BIG MISTAKE) after 6i.
> > > > We are a terminal server shop not Oracle application server with
> > > > that terrible jinitiator stuff and others.
> > > That was not a mistake. The world moves on. Mickeysoft doesn't
> > > support client/server anymore, doesn't it?
> > > Please realise how terrible old Forms 6i is, and please realise
> > > Oracle has many other development tools. Why stay in the dark
> > > and stick to client/server?
> > Because things in the 'real world' often don't match your view of
> > how things should work. E.g. we sell a suite of applications which
> > include a couple of hundred 6i reports. Upgrading to Reports 10g
> > would mean we'd have to charge our clients more to cover the
> > increased licensing costs of the reports elements of application
> > server, with no obvious benefit to themselves.
> It would also mean your clients would be using supported technology.
> Is that a benefit?
[Quoted] [Quoted] No. I know it would be a 'perceived' benefit with some CDOS posters who rate the use of unsupported versions at a similar level to child murder, but the reality is we've never hit an Oracle bug with 6i in the several years we've been using it. In the highly unlikely event we do in the future, we'll worry about it then.
> It would mean they could meet their legal requirements with respect
> to auditing and compliance. Is that a benefit?
As long as our system & reports meet FSA guidelines, which they do, there is no legal issue.
> Given that Oracle has made clear, for years, its intention what you
> are really saying is that your firm chose to ignore Oracle and the
> needs of its customers
There ya go, making accusations without knowing anything about our firm or our customers. It's due to *not* ignoring the needs of our customers that we haven't delayed other enhancements purely to upgrade something that doesn't need upgrading, & which would make our software more expensive for those same customers had we upgraded.
Had we hit regular bugs with 6i (or indeed any bugs), we would obviously had prioritised things differently.
> making so appropriate this quote from
> "For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne
> You being the engineer in this case. <g>
> If you don't do it now when do you plan to do it? With version 11? 12?
> 20? You should have been making this investment on an on-going basis.
[Quoted] We don't plan to do it with any specific version. When we have a window in the development cycle to look at alternatives, we'll do so - but that won't be this year for certain. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - as Shakespeare probably would've said had he thought of it.
-- Preston.Received on Fri Jul 27 2007 - 18:16:30 CEST