Please.....

>
>Well if you criticly review your post where we have discussed with eachother you would not have trouble to find many of them.
>

That's a great response to my guestion....<s>....

>Example, you did imply that SQL-sever will be the winner when a query with big tables involved compared to VFP. I gave you some points on which this IS not the case.
>

Imply, or stated in no uncertain terms that this is always the case. Sounds like a subjective statement here Walter. Fact is, you made some rather sweeping conclusions about SQL. And, in one of your latest posts regarding SQL, you stated something on the order of the faults with SQL in VFP have to do with SQL itself, not the VFP implementation. Well, this is wrong, like much of what you ahve been posting. However, we do agree that at times, the x-base constructs with xbase data are often better than SQL. This should not however be construed as a general knock against SQL. Rather, it is a knock against the VFP implementation... Lets not talk about joins with more than 4 or 5 tables.....

>As for the current discussion, you did state that replication creates too much complexity. To me this only occurs in a specific situation where users a connected from many different remote sites (WAN). In an environment where a SQL-server is locally available (LAN) this is not likely to occur.
>

You see, you super-impose every situation with WHAT YOU CURRENTLY DO. I on the other hand, raise the bar a bit with more complexity. I suspect that is something you flat out don't handle all that well... Sorry...

>We've discussed about wheter DML operations are natively or not, inheritance on the middlelayer, etc. In all cases are examples to find where you where either not complete or inaccurate.
<

I already addressed that I was mistaken in not thinking that SELECTS were not part of the SQL DML. Get off that train Walter....