It was much closer to the 2nd version you said. I got the impression they could continue if they wanted, but they thought it would be much better in the long run to rewrite it to use the new technology so that the tool wasn't obsolete before even being released.
At 04:00 PM 04/19/2010, you wrote: >Steve Ellenoff wrote: > > I asked Craig about the project at SWFOX last year and he had said > > the project was not dead but was on hold since Microsoft had made > > some big changes to the technology used. I don't recall what > > specifically it was, nor when he said it might come out so they > could resume. > > > > I would still recommend someone ask Craig directly since that was > > many months ago already.. > > >Steve, > >How did you take that? Did you take it as "MS has made great >improvements to DotNet so we may not need this alternative tool after >all" ...or... "MS has changed the technology we were going to use...so >we can't approach it as we were going to initially." > >Hopefully MS bought them off and they smiled all the way to the bank. LOL > > > >-- >Mike Babcock, MCP >MB Software Solutions, LLC >President, Chief Software Architect >http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com >http://fabmate.com >http://twitter.com/mbabcock16 > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
