Hi Malcolm,

My first reaction is to let the MS VFP Team (what's left of it) accept or reject any suggestions. Hopefully, with KenL's open kimono and his direct request for such input and KenL's general straightforwardness anyway that would be realistic in this case.

But regarding your list, I don't feel that 3rd party availability should affect any decision, at least as far as the VFP user community is concerned.
If that was a yardstick we wouldn't have gotten the major report writer features in VFP9 given the plethora of 3rd party products already available.
But more importantly, 3rd party products do represent extra hassles and extra costs. My view is that they are the 'court of last resort'

The 'bug but has a reasonable workaround' might be tolerable, but I suspect we'd have difficulty agreeing on "reasonable workaround". I have the opinion that almost all workarounds are UNreasonable and carry the possibility of future difficulties by being forgotten or removed from code or....

Even the '...community can build itself' is problematic. Would it mandatorily come with source code?... Would it mandatorily have comprehensive documentation?... Would it have guaranteed support until 2014 and beyond?

So I take you back to my original position - let all of the dreams flow freely, with lots of discussion, and let Microsoft decide.

cheers


>The purpose of this thread is to propose a strawman list of conditions that one might consider before posting a Sedna enhancement request. The goal is to keep the list of Sedna improvements focused on what will bring the most value to the community. Simply reposting the existing VFP 10 wishlists will just muddle this process.
>
>Definition of an acid test: An acid test is a list of conditions that must be met in order for a particular request to pass.
>
>Here's my first draft (a strawman if you will) of such a list:
>
>1. If an improvement is available via a 3rd party tool then Reject it
>
>2. If an improvement is a bug with reliable workarounds then Reject it
>
>3. If improvement is a feature that the community can build itself then Reject it
>
>In order to maximize the resources that Microsoft is focusing on Sedna, I think we all need to think in terms of asking for hooks into VFP that will allow the community to implement new features vs. just asking for new features.
>
>Malcolm