Srdjan,

I agree, this is a matter of personal preference. I used to like working with a .PRG file but now find it easier to work visually with .VCX-based class.

Thank you for your input.


>Hi Dmitry,
>My vote defenetely goes to session object!
>
>Not only because of functionality, but for practicall purposes as well.
>I find maintaing of couple of PRG's per project much easier
>then having to fish code scattered in all bunch of VCX
>libraries or (god help those) hundreds of form (SCX) files.
>
>But of course, this is matter of personall preferences.
>
>Rgds++
>
>
>
>
>>Thank you all for your suggestions. Too bad the three of you suggest three different approaches and I don't want to offend any one of you <g>.
>>
>>Seriously though. Creating composite object at design time is not a priority for me (honestly I don't even understand the purpose of the composite object). Therefore container does not seem to be the right fit for my needs. And I don't mind putting extra time/work to pass data across session boundary. But to work with session class is PITA because you have to do it all in .PRG.
>>Custom class is nice but lacking the DataSession property to isolate the data. I don't have VFP 9 yet, just ordered it yesterday, but I was hoping that by now (ver 9) VFPT would have a class that have benefits of all three suggested, specifically designed for business classes.
>>
>>>Dmitry,
>>>
>>>I vote for container. It allows you to build up composite objects at design time by dropping other classes inside another. If you use custom you can't do this at design time, it can only be done at runtime via AddObject() calls.
>>>
>>>If you use session then you have to workout a scheme of passing data across the session boundary and that can consume a lot of time.
>>>
>>>>What do you recommend to use as a base class in VFP 9 when creating a business class? I prefer to use visual classes.