>There is always SQL Server Express Edition that can be used too.
>
>I see your point rick about using the native VFP tables - obviously it would make the install a bit easier to put together - but consider this:
>He can use remote views to connect to his VFP database via ODBC
>The ODBC driver specs are nothing other than registry entries so those can be included in the install.
>If he later wants to change to mySQL, SQL Server, Oracle, or whatever - then all he has to do is create the tables in the new backend and point the connection string in his VFP remote views to point to the new database.
>At the outset it seems weird because you're using remote views to connect to a VFP database - but in the long run this idea works really really REALLY well because it makes changing the backend database a 2 minute deal. I've been doing this for years and surprised I haven't got more folks out here to try it.

If it were that easy, I'd agree with you, but unfortunately its not. We've got a huge app that is operating on a VFP and/or SQL server database. The problem is that with the more complex SQL statements and requirements you bump into the specifics of each database backend. A simple example is that boolean (or bit) fields are handled quite different in VFP as opposed to SQL server. In the first you'll have to use .T. or .F. in selection criteria, the latter 1 or 0. Each backend has specifics about how to call stored procedures, functions, hints, recursive SQL statements, limitations, aggregation, datatypes etc.

It might work for the simple stuff, and really, if cross database is strategic to your product, then you should keep your SQL very simple and most likely SQL-92 compatible or else prepare for endless battles to support those backend databases.

In our situation we've developed a table for SQL statements that are either generic or for a specific backend. Though this potentially could resolve any issues having to do with backend specific stuff, the nightmare of supporting, testing, troubleshooting of each backend database and any new version is more than enough reason not to go that direction. SQL server is quite well spread and accepted as a database. We have had a question or two about support for oracle, but did not find that to be a deal breaker. SQL express 2008R2 is free and supports database up to 10 GB which is more than enough for small installations. a 5 user licence for SQL server 2008 workgroup edition is under a $1000 and absolutely not a problem for clients our buying our product for over $40.000.

Walter,