Hello Liam, Thanks for the input. One thing I do want to clarify is that fine generation even in case #1 would still be functionally independent of the checkin code. (It has to be, since fine generation for most installations is set to happen continually, or at least daily.) Plan #1 would simply open up the possibility of doing the checkin/fine processes in a single transaction.
The main problem with plan #2 is not the generation component of fine handling, but all of the other possible alterations and adjustments to fines which can happen depending on the checkin conditions. I do agree that #2 is better from a design perspective, but it is quite a bit more complex than your outline suggests, and it would (in my opinion) be much safer to approach that design iteratively, which is what I hope doing #1 first would allow us to do. Dan
