Hi Craig,

snip
>
>The problem is the ActiveX vendors not following standards.
>
This is at least the second time that I have seen you write this, yet I recollect that the VFP Team has somewhere stated that VFP does have problems with ActiveX controls that employ containers (possibly of a specific nature only - I am unclear there). So it seems to me that VFP bears at least some of the fault here.

>>Real Windows Control (buttons, toolbars, checkbox ,etc) and GUI interface. >This is important if you want to use automated QA programs.
>
>Are you sure you want this? It will slow down your application and the native Windows controls don't have as many events, methods, and properties available.
>
I wonder WHY you are so sure that this would slow down VFP applications??? Obviously this would be unacceptable to the vast majority of VFP users. But this alleged slowdown is all theoretical and we should have sufficient confidence in the VFP Team at MS to find ways around such "problems". As for the native controls not having many of our properties, events and methods, this is again an issue for the highly talented VFP Team (and not you or me). My answer to your supposition is yet another supposition. . . that the VFP Team could 'sub-class' the native Windows controls to endow them with the required (missing) functionalities. Yes, I know that in VFP **WE** cannot define additional events BUT who is to say that the owners of the Windows controls cannot do so???? I have to bet that they, in fact, **CAN** define just about whatever they feel is needed for any Windows control by sub-classing or by some other means unknown to us.

>>User replaceable FOX errormessages.
>
>Look at Error event and ON ERROR. For a complete explanation of error handling in VFP, look at the whitepaper at www.stonefield.com.
>
>>Ability to build VFP application into ActiveX component not just COM/DCOM >component. It is a shame that a good development tool and language is left >behind with such glaring deficiencies. Thanks.
>
>Requested many times. The response from the VFP team has always been "Why do you want to do that?"
>
And have they ever gotten an answer to this... and have they listened??? And if their answer is that there are "D/COM" ways to achieve the same end, then have they clearly said HOW, and is the existing VFP documentation clear enough on the subject???

Regards,

Jim N


>>
>>Regards,
>>Kueh.