![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh, the joyful frustration of someone trying to tell you UR DOIN' IT RONG when they have no concept of the processes you're running.
No, we can't do what you're suggesting because this is a standard system process over which we have no manual control. Our external "interchange system" passes it to the standard port, and the system decides internally how to deal with it. Which happens to be this standard-system programming routine to which we've added code so it can deal with our changes. The added code is not a problem, so far as the system is concerned. But the modifications you are proposing would change the way the system deals with this standard port and its standard programming. Which is highly inadvisable.
Yes, I get what you're trying to do, and why you're suggesting it. But it is not possible the way this is configured. Trust me.
No, we can't do what you're suggesting because this is a standard system process over which we have no manual control. Our external "interchange system" passes it to the standard port, and the system decides internally how to deal with it. Which happens to be this standard-system programming routine to which we've added code so it can deal with our changes. The added code is not a problem, so far as the system is concerned. But the modifications you are proposing would change the way the system deals with this standard port and its standard programming. Which is highly inadvisable.
Yes, I get what you're trying to do, and why you're suggesting it. But it is not possible the way this is configured. Trust me.
Tags:
no subject