Hi Arnon ---

I thought that 6 was going to have builtin support for ADO but....nahhh...

Anyway, you can use ADO in VFP just as efficiently (maybe more so due to OOP) than you can in VB. So why not use VFP? And I agree on remote views...it's just that a common topic of discussion has been ADO and I was trying to point out that Ed's framework style may be one way of exploring it.

Personally, I'd like an ADO type of connection in the connection wizard or something like that to bring down a cursor to use Fox ISAM against.

As to caring about using VFP: No. I have a theory -- You fit the tool to the job and not the job to the tool. I love developing in VFP and I don't like the wishy-washy way MS presents it...but I am not afraid to steer projects clear of it and I have been known to move projects OUT of VFP and into InterDev or Delphi (gasp) or even VB.


>If I am not using VFP features, I might as well not be using VFP
>instead of thinking about a workaround from ADO, I would rather have built
>in native support for ADO, maybe will get that in future versions
>If I need to access remote data, remote views and SQL passthroughs are still
>a better way to go- IMHO
>
>btw, not realted to his thread, and a point to think about - when ADO will
>have all the VFP features in it , and they are sure working on that, would
>you really care if you are using VFP?!
>
>Arnon
>
>
>
>>
>>Hi Arnon ---
>>
>>When you think about it (as I brought up in another branch of this thread),
>Ed's method has merit when you consider that if your controlsource is an
>object property (in his framework created from SCATTER NAME), then you can
>scale up the data source with -zero- form changes....for example, I could
>swap out the SCATTER code with an ADO.RecordSet .. or whatever...
>>
>>Grids *might* be a problem, though.
>>
>>>I never said your system is bad, I said that IMHO using private
>datasession
>>>is better.If I would think otherwise I would most probably wouldn't be
>using
>>>it. I would imagine that if you would thing your method is not better you
>>>wouldn't have been using it ...