Sorry for the extraordinarily late reply, but: I'm only peripherally involved in this application, but I think it's in part because of hideously bad architectur

Sorry for the extraordinarily late reply, but: I'm only peripherally involved in this application, but I think it's in part because of hideously bad architecture from the ground up. I know it was written in Cold Fusion, for one thing, which has graduated to the ever-popular Tremendously Expensive Licensing Era, and has major performance and database problems. But yes, politically: There is no desire to make it a "migration" type of problem; transitioning users isn't important from the business perspective. That might be hard to believe, but I think the argument is that dragging the old product through its own muck is a lot slower than building a new product that brings in new business. So, who am I to argue with that? Are we saying, no, no, if you have an old product you must migrate even when the business says you don't need to?