2 ms·

I don't think that's fair. If the law sets the limit at 30 days, there is no reason to do it sooner than 30 days. It is obviously a money-losing proposition t

I don't think that's fair. If the law sets the limit at 30 days, there is no reason to do it sooner than 30 days. It is obviously a money-losing proposition to do it quickly, and the only reason it's an option at all is because of the law. I guess that makes it a reasonable compromise -- everyone is equally unhappy, but the world is a slightly better place. The reality is that "30 days" translates to "someone will run a script manually once a month" whereas something like "100 milliseconds" would force you to have automation. It's a reasonable tradeoff for rare events. There is a lot less engineering effort required, and that makes it cheaper.

tpmx 6y ago
You are reacting on just one part of the directive, even though I just told you about you another part. Seriously? What's the point?
viraptor 6y ago
> there is no reason to do it sooner than 30 days There is. Any tiny issue puts you past 30 days and invites a slap from the regulator. There's a lot of space between 100ms and 30 days. If you can't run your monthly process twice a day instead for example, you're most likely delaying on purpose - that's the "undue delay" part. There's a company I know which decided not to pay any invoices until the last possible moment - which one day resulted in the electricity being cut to an office building with hundreds of people. Do you think that was a good decision in the end?