NetTalk Central

NetTalk Web Server => Web Server - Ask For Help => Topic started by: ozejohn on December 10, 2008, 09:01:29 PM

Title: Is Nettalk 5 still looking good for first look before the end of the year?
Post by: ozejohn on December 10, 2008, 09:01:29 PM

Hi,

The origional hope was that the first look at nettalk 5 would be available by the end of the year.

 I know it is sad and I should get a life, but I get a bit of time to look at new stuff in January. Mainly because unlike me my customers do have a life. They are busy having fun over the holiday season here in Sunny Aus.

Is it too early to know if Nettalk 5 is looking like being Ready before Christmas?

Title: Re: Is Nettalk 5 still looking good for first look before the end of the year?
Post by: Bruce on December 10, 2008, 09:39:23 PM

Hi John,

At this stage, I'm sorry to say, there's no chance of it shipping before Feb of next year. There's still quite a lot of ground-work to do on it, and I have a monster deadline for Jan 5 which I probably won't make anyway...

Cheers
Bruce

Title: Re: Is Nettalk 5 still looking good for first look before the end of the year?
Post by: ozejohn on December 11, 2008, 01:50:48 PM

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for the prompt response.

I am working on converting my core app over to nettalk web server. This requires a few features that are on the Nettalk 4/5 wish list like forms as child of browse,optional automatic call of select window when form field validation fails and column repositioning on form and browse. I will bug you again in Feb to see how it is going.

Good luck with your Jan Deadline.


 

Title: Re: Is Nettalk 5 still looking good for first look before the end of the year?
Post by: Bruce on December 14, 2008, 10:45:05 PM

Hi John,

>> forms as child of browse,
>> optional automatic call of select window when form field validation fails
>> column repositioning on form and browse.

bear in mind that until the features are done I cannot guarantee that any specific feature will be included. Some are not in NetTalk 4 because I haven't got there yet, but others are not there because architecturally they are difficult, or perhaps impossible, to do.

So please don't _require_ any expected feature - if you get it, it's a bonus.

Cheers
Bruce