>Could you spell-out some of the benefits that SQL can provide that VFP cannot? (I know they are there; just trying to be clear.)
>

Integrated security
Full transaction logging
Replication
Can scale with respect to data size
And when dealing with significant amounts of data, in most cases, will leave VFP's data engine in the dust....


>Hi, John and Erik.
>
>Thanks for answering.
>
>For the purpose of this discussion, lets define Client/Server (at least as I mean it).
>
>1) C/S is not file server. In a file-server architecture each client opens the files it needs in shared mode which reside on a file server. If any client bombs at an awkward moment a file can be damaged. In C/S only the server has the files open and only the server can damage those files.
>

Naw... I can damage files easily from the client in a C/S system if I really wanted to....

>2) C/S does not mean open architecture (programs written in many different languages can access the data.) For example, most folks understand Power Builder to be C/S but that is not open.
>

No, but it usually means your data is open to a variety of clients...

>3) C/S means that only result sets are sent across the network.

And ideally, minimized result sets... To often, folks bring down a bunch of data, and then filter it out after it gets to the client. These folks wonder why C/S sucks. Well, it sucks when you attempt to bring down 10-20 thousand records when you only need 100 or so....


>4) C/S as opposed to web-server/browser means that a very powerful UI can be presented to the user.
>

I disagree where. A web application is essentially a C/S system sitting on different technologies...