John,

>I am not sure where the big complexity is?? You have a DDL, DML, and a DCL. I find if you remain ANSI 92 compliant, you are in pretty good shape.

That would be a major problem. Not one SQL variant is full ANSI 92 comliant.

>One point that I do stand correction on. The DML does over Updates, Inserts, Deletes, as well as Queries..... However, I think you are placing way to much importance of native functionality. If you are that much of a native functionality purist, you should not use ActiveX controls...

I tend to use them as less as possible.

>Fine, how about this. Since VB has a Data Environment now, THAT NATIVELY SUPPORTS ADO, could we not then say that VB NATIVELY SUPPORTS DATA ACCESS VIA ADO???? Yes, I think we can.....

I don't know the details about ADO so I can't judge this issue.

>Thanks Walter for clearing that up...


>So you don't ever use ODBC - where the full VFP language is not at your disposal. You don't use SQL Server. That is after all, an external data mechanism....

Whenever possible I use ODBC as transparent as possible. This includes Remote view. Of course when I have no other choice I've got to choose to talk to the server directly or in another way.

>>If you read carefully, i did say one of the . And for your test, it still depends on the situation, The resultset of your SQL query still has to go trough the WAN, whereas VFP is able to cache data (on OS level) wich gan give VFP a boost, Especially when index data is cached.
>>
>
>Walter, try and open a multi-million record DBF on a WAN.... It is not as intantaneous as you think.. As for SQL, only the result set comes back. And, if I want, I can operate asyncronsously... You really don't want to take me on here... But if you must, please do....Also, this thing you allude to VFP caching data on the OS level. Could you go into that further. Do you mean the client or the server??

I've lots of experience with DBFs on a WAN. convincing me is not as easy as you might think.

About the caching thing. The OS is able to cache table information at the client side. So if you run a query once, it caches data on the client side. For a next query it can use this cached data to optimize the query, so it has less need to download the data from the WAN, whereas with SQL server the wole query is downloaded again.

Especially when index data is cached VFP is able to request only the resultset from the table, so decreasing overhead of undesired records.

Of course in a lot of cases SQL would outperform VFP in this issue, but certainly not all.

>And, FWIW, SQL Server can cache data as well. However, those caches are on the server.... Once again, you really don't want to take me on here....

Sorry I'll debate you again sometime tommorow. My wife is calling < g >

Walter,