Re: Java Batch

In article <68ghf7F2t1kt0U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fvu996$5ns$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <68f55lF2rpuveU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>><docdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>news:fvsi79$iae$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Mr Dashwood, consider the following:
>>>>
>>>> Given that a cor****ation has finite resources then how are user
changes
>>>> (which consume resources) to be co-ordinated and allocated in a
manner
>>>> which is not reflective of 'the squeakiest wheel' and which is most
>>>> profitable to the organisation?
>>>
>>>It's easy. Change the way you develop stuff. Take a look at Active
>>>methodology. (Both IBM and MicroSoft have recently...)
>>
>> Mr Dashwood, I've taken a look at Active methodology and have found
>> nothing which addresses this question above.
>
>Then you simply didn't get it.

No, Mr Dashwood, it simply isn't there.  You've made an assertion without 
anything to do***ent it in response to a direct question about Managerial 
Function; hand-waving and 'all ya gotta do is won't cut it when it comes 
to dealing with such a situation.  Third time: Given that a cor****ation 
has finite resources then how are user changes (which consume resources) 
to be co-ordinated and allocated in a manner which is not reflective of 
'the squeakiest wheel' and which is most profitable to the organisation?

DD