>Hi Cetin,
>
>No I'm not kidding: we don't need ORM under whatever name, because we assign a controlsource, and the fields are automatically (dynamically) mapped. In VFP there are not full objects (one can't bindevent a field), but in the extensions created under the VFP Compiler for .Net they are full objects. They could have been in VFP, but development stopped.
>

I think you're misunderstanding some of the things an ORM will give you. It's not just a strongly-typed interface that you can databind against. A big part of the their benefit is that automatically handle mapping your object model to the data model, which may or may not look anything like one another. Imagine the standard Customer > Invoice relationship. You tell the ORM mapper how they are related and what the object model looks like and it handles the rest (retrieving the data, persisting the changes, etc.). You might have a property on the Customer object called PrimaryContact. In the data PrimaryContact is actually stored in a child table of contacts - that can be transparent to you. That is, the object model can have attributes that don't have a 1-to-1 relationship to the data model.