For the record, no one has pointed out any false or misleading statements that I haven't acknowledged. And isn't this the nature of this forum anyway? I make a statement and you agree or disagree, hopefully by providing some intelligent arguments.
My original statements stand and I'd repeat them again with the exception of AFP possibly using the multi-threaded runtime. Most of the frameworks only simulate multi-threading by running multiple processes. Your tool is in this group too unless you're using the multi-threaded runtime...
AND try winning a slander suit against someone telling the truth...
>Just from following THIS thread, you probably COULD file a legal action for slander, then see how quickly he'd have to start charging for his product to pay the legal bills.
>
>As for my own framework (DVRWeb), I started that in order to get a better understanding of some of the inner workings of web processing. That started with the early FoxISAPI using a COM pooling mechanism to prevent need of reloading the VFP run-time for each request.
>
>As for using WWWC, I use whatever the client requests. One client inparticular has great responsiveness dealing w/Govt contracts data and over a million records. Get some real times using ActiveVFP with something like that, THEN compare.
>
>Claude should have just spoken of his own product on its own merits, not to blast others. By stating features that it allows should promote a person to do more research on the available frameworks (.Net, Multi-threaded, COM+, script handling, ability to debug in native VFP, etc)
>
>As one of our friends had lost a 3 month old child due to an apparent "shaking-baby syndrome" a few years back, the attorney threw a lot of "red-herrings" and "smoke-and-mirrors" to get the day-care provider off.
>
>Let people do their OWN research than relying on what could be false and/or inaccurate statements.