>Jess ---
>
>Some things are not reasonable to expect. MS is not going to radically change the DBF structure to accomodate table security, just like they didn't change it for long field names. As I've pointed out before, it's not too difficult tying security to existing DBCs through triggers and API calls to NT to emulate SQL Server's integrated security.
>
>One of VFPs strengths is in the idea that if it isn't there, you can build it yourself. I have no problems with security being in the "do it yourself" list.

John,

Thank you for your constructive comments. We are professional enough to accept and understand the logic behind MS point of view. This issue will not go this far if explanation or absolute answer is immediately undertaken. And as I am becoming updated with the release of VFP6.0, I am now coming to realize that MS is concentrating really on VFP to be the middle-tier / front-end tool other than as a back-end.

Thanks...

>
>>
>>Jeff, we are not complaining. We are just asking why MS is not putting those supossedly enhancement which are in the wish list. And these wish list are coming from our clients which are valid and to our assessment for the good of the product. Besides, MS is the promoter of this so called "Wish List", and as customer/client we are in the position to give our wish which are available in other products. I am not questioning your satisfaction in so far as the current VFP version is concern. It so happened that we want and expect more enhancements to stay competitive in the arena of software of development. Because since VB, PB and Delphi has emerged, VFP is being left behind and its marketplace is becoming lower and lower, and as users and dependent on VFP, we want to stay it alive, if not, better to dumped it and use other tools.