If you're using long field names (longer than 10 characters) in any of those tables than you'll have to use DBC in order to preserve them in local tables.

>
>We are designing a Client/Server application with SQL (back-end) and VFP (front). Data in SQL will be updated from the application; however, we have a few static tables we need to access frequently to display information on the various Combo Box fields in the application. Since data in those tables are rarely updated, we had decided to store those tables in users’ local machines to reduce unnecessary data traffic between SQL and VFP. Then, while starting up the application, the system will check for discrepancy between local and server tables and update the local tables accordingly.
>
>After saying all that, we just had a discussion between developers about whether we want to create database container for those tables or make them as free tables. Which layout can be the most efficient and effective for need and easy maintenance for the tables? I see advantages and disadvantages of both approaches and would really appreciate your input on the matter.
>