On 31/01/11 15:04, David Wolverton wrote: > Am I out on a limb here saying that CallHTTP should probably not cause a > Phantom to go iPhantom? I mean, Rocket can do whatever the heck they want, > it's their sandbox after all and we really have no choice but to suck it > up... But is the logic they employed flawed as I think it is? Or am I just > a loon? (Hmmmm.. really, the two questions are not mutually exclusive I > guess... But you get the point... ) I'm interested in comments on the > topic, if any.
Hmmm ... Not saying it's a good, or a bad, idea, but why can't Rocket do what Prime did with INFORMATION (which bit us on a couple of occasions). We had two 16-user licences and a 32-user licence. Each "user" type had a set of licences. So a 16-user system had 16 interactive licences, 16 slave licences, 16 phantom licences, you get the drift ... Until 17 users on the 32-user system wanted to access data on the 16-user system - blam - "unable to connect, licences exhausted". But the rules were nice and clear, and we just had to work round them. Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list [email protected] http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
