>>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.

How can you judge that you wrote about this approach if you've never seen it? Your post is a good illustration.
Would you like to say that business object must be bound to data? VFP is firstly OO environment. This is the main point, and what you actually raise to the first place is XBASE data handling.
I know that my words will be perverted immediately, but look (not you but some other people around). VB never binds to data, do not care about data sessions, and it's general-purpose object (you may break swords here, but it still object) language. The core of any VFP project is OO-hierarchy, that makes it different from FPW. Private DS and buffering they all can be simulated there, but not OO features.
Finally, if OO-design requires from developer to use private DS, very good. I'm not so jealous to claim the opposite. But if OO-design allows to live without private DS, and couple other XBASE tricks, it also deserves to be listened.