>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I tested my application, when using SQL Server database; deleted all DBF and Container (.DCT/DBC/DCX) files.
>>>>And the application works. I use CursorAdapter as far as connecting to the SQL Server.
>>>>Please confirm that I am not missing something, that a VFP 9 application, using CA, can work without any DBF and Container files.
>
>In nit-picking mode I'd say that the temp files returned from SQL server are DBF files with another extension ;-))
>
>>Now I see that the only reason I need the DBF and Container files is for Stonefield SF Query. Which relies on SDT. So, in order for me to completely get rid of the DBF/DBC files, I will need to convert the SF Query to work with XML files instead. Not a trivial task. But something to consider.
>
>Never tried it, but as it is currently table based and you already have SQL connected: why go to XML instead of porting the SFQ tables to SQL server as well ? Could be less work if hop to server is not problematic - but moving to XML IMO often is a worse idea than allowing .dbf reads via Dotnet tools (my guess of origin of the idea...) unless customer/local install person is expected/depended on to hand-edit the XML files.
>
>just a gut hunch/response
>thomas

My ideas are all just considerations, at this point.