>Hi John, Ed,
>
>I am also interested in Ed's general framework. I have seen glimpses of it from time to time in his posts here. I think an "alternate approach" article for the KB here would be very enlightening.

John,

I have to disagree. IN a place t like this we get experienced developers and newbees. Experienced VFP developers have, or should have, no interest in a "VFP" framework that ignores and avoids many of the features of the development tool. Newbees, if they are comming from FP 2.x, can be easily misinformed about what they need to change about their style in order to make the best use of VFP.

There are a lot of areas in development that are not clearly right or wrong, but Ed's approach to data, don't use buffering, don't use private data sessions, don't use data binding of VFP controls, is clearly and susinctly the wrong approach for VFP development.

It is very seldom that I will take a stance on an issue like this. I can't recall the last time I felt it so absolutely necessary that I step in and counter the posts of someone with a strong argument to the contrary. The problem with this is the following, a person asks a question, clearly they are looking for information. Then an MVP tells them something that is absolutely wrong adn is simply the result of doing things the same way they were done in a prior version of the product, that is 3 versions back.

I've seen this a few times and have bit my tongue, but I can't do that anymore.

Personally, I have no interest isn seeing Ed's article at all. I wrote many articles explaining that approach years ago but the information is dated now and of no value.