Hi Jack,

I'm in the process of (slowly, what with real work and all) learning VB.

The singular reason that I am doing so is that virtually all folks HERE (on UT) accept the stated direction of mid-tier and all of the implications that brings for NON-ENTERPRISE type apps (no improvements for VFP UI stuff including ActiveX, std. Win objects in VFP, Grids (the nightmare), etc; no functionality like objects for menus/reports, status quo on DBC/DBF capabilities, etc etc etc)!

Cheers,

Jim N

PS Yes, I tried to stir up a movement to get much better wish-list type support out of VFP team of MS, but all are happy with current situation.

>>Jim,
>>
>>>See what we got so far? - ZILCH.
>>
>>Don't you think the wishlist has a few hundred maybe a few thousand items on it? and they are supposed to put your suggestions at the top of the pile?
>
>I think Jim Nelson points out an important point about VFP--you can not simply pass a CURSOR between a VFP client and VFP COM server. If I have understood Jim's posts in the past, that would address issues that many have with the "dated" DBF format. You could protect those tables on a separate server accessible only to the COM server. In effect, would you not have something akin to the traditional client server?
>
>Jim, you once said that I like to "stir things up." You've been on a real rampage with MS' handling of VFP. However, does the current version inhibit you in any way from delivering apps that meet you clients' needs and expectations? If you see benefits in adopting ADO and MS's Universal Data Access paradigm, why not just pick up VB and do those things today? If you wait for VFP to catch up, you always be behind...
>
>Jack Mendenhall
>RMI