> You're basically right. The situation here however is that the feature > has > not been requested - it was there and has been removed.This is not entirely correct, it was there and when the module it lived in got re-written it was descided not to spend money on re-implementing it as it was seen as being somewhat sub-par.
From the user's point of view, i would agree with Horst.
The feature was there, and has been removed - the reason doesn't matter much, except it's a kind of "improvement".
The problem is, that we have both:
- an improvement (by rewriting the code - i hope it was an improvement, was it?)
- and a missing, but reasonable feature that "once upon a time" existed.
I think there is a project out there, that aims to improve SAPDB by adding missing features - but i think that's hard work because they will have to rewrite their patches very often.
Anyway, i wouldn't trust those patches very much.
_______________________________________________
sapdb.general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
