>>Pete
>>
>>So your the other programmer <bg>. My 2.6 system is a full Taxi Insurance Underwriting/Policy Issue/Claims Processing/New Business Telesales Quotation Engine/Remote Site Policy Document Issue/Agent Accounting/EDI'ing 2.6 system (phew). I have been developing this system for the last five years or so. I am about to start recreating the interface components in VFP but they need to run concurrently with the 2.6 data and interfaces. Then, the views need to be upsized onto a SQL backend. Thats what it's all about. It's great to hear that you have been getting away with it.
>>
>>Hope to speak again soon. Thanks for your confirmation.
>>
>>>>I am starting a project to develop some tools in VFP5 that will utilise tables concurrently used by a FPW2.6a system. Whilst I can access the tables as "free tables", I would like to base the new tools on Views based on the 2.6 tables. The 2.6 tables all have a Codebook 2.6 psuedo-primary key field cID c(9), which has ID's generated by Codebook's NetID() function. Therefore, there is a unique key value in the 2.6 table. Does anyone have any experience with this approach? I have read in the VFP help that views need a "primary key" in the source table to allow accurate/successfull updates. Will the 2.6 cID field value do? Any comments/tips/ideas very much appreciated.
>>>
>>>Gary,
>>>FWIW I've been using 2.6 tables in views for approx 18 mths with no problem, my tables vary from 30,000 to 1000,000+ records, I would be interested to know what sort of projects VFP is being used for in the UK, my current one is manging claims/repayments for a very large and complex liquidation (the biggest ever)
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Pete Kane ( the other VFP programmer in the UK )
>
>Gary,
>sounds like a nice project are you contract or perm?
>Regards
>Pete Kane

Pete

I suppose you could say I am permanent - hopefully <s>.