>>>
>>> I'm writing a VFP 3.0 app that will need to access and maintain free tables
>>> used by another application written in FoxPro 2.5 DOS. Structural compound
>>> indexes (.CDX) are used to order the records. Does anyone know of any
>>> compatibility problems that exist that would make this a bad idea? My big
>>> concern is whether or not VFP 3.0 and FoxPro 2.5 DOS update the CDX files
>>> the same.
>>Ron,
>>
>>Would it be that big an issue to maintain your own set of idx's?
>>Although I believe the processing is the same, I'm not sure if there are
>>any multi-user issues and using two versions to maintain the same CDX's
>>would give the the willies just thinking about all of the support calls
>>from users who sya their data is 'lost'.
>>
>>Just my opinion. It might be ok, but I think it would be safer to
>>maintain separate indices.
>>
>>HTH
>>
>>--
>>Matt McDonnell
>>
>>Conventional Wisdom - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>>Gates Wisdom - "If it doesn't work, sell it, and fix it later."
>
>Matt,
>The structural indexes are already being used by the
>FoxPro 2.5 app, and I don't have the option of changing
>that, so the VFP program will need to update it as it makes changes to the table.
>
>I had another reply saying they are compatible, but thanks
>for the suggestion.

They are only compatible if the tables were created in FoxPro 2.5, or you copy them to a new table in VFP 3.0 with the "type fox2x" clause.

Rick