It appeared to be important for assessing unit to beware of context it is called in.
A client have a very much casual case:
product is quite functional itself
is also supplies set of functions under their own licensing protection - each function is covered by its own licensing feature.
for reasons that we should not try to fathom the client builds binary distribution from the whole codebase: product core and all the supplementary functions together.
Now client issues a license with the only grant - for the core of the product, whithout any additional functions.
On the first startup license assessment is performed and the license is imported. Assessing unit finds that lots of features are not covered by this license and reasonably decides to issue negative certificate. Which leads user to a frustration: they experience incapacity to fix things.
On the next launch everything goes smoothly, but not every client makes to the second run before posting support ticket.
If only assessing unit knew circumstances of the appeal
whether it called in general context to widely inform user of its license coverage state,
or in precise feature access request
that whould let the unit behave more user friendly.
It appeared to be important for assessing unit to beware of context it is called in.
A client have a very much casual case:
Now client issues a license with the only grant - for the core of the product, whithout any additional functions.
On the first startup license assessment is performed and the license is imported. Assessing unit finds that lots of features are not covered by this license and reasonably decides to issue negative certificate. Which leads user to a frustration: they experience incapacity to fix things. On the next launch everything goes smoothly, but not every client makes to the second run before posting support ticket.
If only assessing unit knew circumstances of the appeal
that whould let the unit behave more user friendly.