Environment versions
Network:
Windows 2003 Server
>And if you would like to take the 2nd position, would you like people to have additions made to the VFP10-wish list? Is it a good idea to make an Etecnologia-chapter on UT? etc. etc.
Give them time to finish a vfp9-compatible version first ;-)
In the article it is mentioned that
about one third of the commands and functions is implemented
funding for more developers might be a problem
SQL is a language in itself
perhaps defining in between steps is a better help than rasising the bar.
I myself would pay for a "backend part" only, consisting mainly of all the functionality found in the FPW/FPDos versions:
albeit with Select-SQL on the level reached in vfp9,
all xbase functions found back then impelemented with all the vfp9-level-functionality
? and wait window - support
but without ANY other GUI support from that area - neither @say get nor menu <g>.
from current versions support for
local,
candidate keys,
table/cdx-functions like key(), ataginfo, afields()
declare DLL,
the empty class (with scatter/gather name)
one class like custom for OOP programming paradigma
perhaps more current string and array functions (alines was the first thing I backported to FPW <g>)
The next step could be a "business layer compatible" level, with support for eventbinding, timers, collections, datasession, SOAP, DBC, all other SQL commands and so on: everything NON-GUI.
The last step would be a GUI-enabled version - after that enhancements will be asked for.
Probably the priorities of others will be different <bg>, but such a stepwise implementation should make sense to everybody creating layered apps and a similar approach could perhaps get some funding back to ET...
my 0.02 EUR
thomas
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only