>>I am so glad I'll never have to maintain that kind of code. Instead of just duping the foxpro code, you should rethink how its supposed to work and take advantage of .Net to make it happen. All you doing is cloning foxpro code in .net, which, in my opinion, is foolhardy and why you're having so much trouble trying to make your solution work.
>
...

> Say, this is the method I just converted and doing some re-factoring now:
>
very often I think there is no need for a total rewrite if you intelligently reuse the existing code being tested and no need for analysis, stupid discussion sessions and so on. For that code porting is not a good idea IMNSHO. Especially if you first clone and then refactor - either get a budget to refactor and test the refactored vfp code - on first reading duplicated copy code for at least 2 methods with logging, duplicate SQL generation and so on - which eliminates the benefit or hope of "well written". If the code was written by a sharp dev and maintained into the sorry state you show, tell managment to either clean it up first (doubtful as you are porting...) or start with a new attempt at good code. If the code was designed that way and NOT maintained into the ground, I'd not touch it without rubber gloves - so much copy and paste mentality will probably result in a design not really clean. IAC the order of "port" then "refactor" in itself should prove something is wrong not only in Denmark...