>Hiya Craig,
>
>In regards to the ActiveX issue with containership is documented in the MS KB article Q186123. From my understanding of it, the problem lies in the area of message processing. This, of course, is connected with the way VFP processes Windows messages. Whether or not this can or will be resolved in the next version is unknown. The folks in a position to know, as you realize, are bound or will be bound by NDAs. So the best we can do here is make some SWAGs about it. If it is to be resolved, as I've said before, it will be in the next version. Doing so previously, from a purely business standpoint, made no sense.
>

Version v.next will always solve existing problems. Will all of them be solved? Absolutely not. There are many things that people can interpret as problems that really aren't. How many posts have there been about "I just found a bug in VFP" and it turned out not to be because of a lack of understanding. Now, I'm not saying that is the case with ActiveX controls. I'm pointing out the fact that what one person deems a bug is not a bug to someone else. If the VFP team feels this needs to be changed, it will get changed...and not before.

There are still other bugs that are a low priority that may not get fixed due to schedule demands.

>On another subject, this thread in parts reminds me of one I was involved in a while back (pre-SP3). A poster, who's name I don't recall, took me to task for saying the VFP's problems at the time with HP printer drivers were not totally Microsoft's responsibility. I replied that the fault, in reality, was primarily HP's for not following the driver specs MS had published. I went on to say, that the secondary responsibilty lay with the developer. This was because the problem was caused by division by zero. As you are well aware, if you're in a situation where this can happen, it means that you've allowed bad data into the system, which it's the developer's responsibility to keep out. Lastly, I said that MS was, indeed, also at fault for not making VFP more fault tolerant. This situation, of course, was corrected in SP3.

I agree. The developer is responsible to handle things like this. However, I think the VFP team took the right approach. They called HP and said "It's your problem, fix it" HP said No, so the VFP team took care of it. Personally, I love HP printers but absolutely HATE their drivers. I have an Parallel Zip drive that I can't use due to problems with the HP driver.

>
>The thing that bothered me most in the whole exchange was that I was being taken to task for my opinion. It didn't make any difference that it was based on a totally objective, and correct, analysis of problem. Nope, I didn't fall into lock-step with those folks who view MS in a negative fashion, so naturally, I'm some of sort of apologist for MS. Nevermind the fact that I've over 40 applications writing daily to up to 20 HP printers of various models, and never encountered this problem. My opinion didn't coincide with theirs, which conveniently overlooked the facts.
>
>I don't have a problem with someone else's opinion. They're entitled, and so am I. I do have a problem with derogatory remarks made about people with differing opinions, simply because of that opinion. It shows an utter and complete lack of respect for the other person. I realize that there's not too much I can do about it. What I can do, however, is simply to avoid these sorts, which is what I intend to do.

I totally agree with this.


>
>Regards,