>>Not disagreeing, but just curious about something. If the *other* applications are old FP2 apps using explicit RLOCK() or FLOCK()'s does your assertion still hold true?
>>
>>IOW, has anyone ever had a conflict between implicit locking and explicit locking?
>
>Not positive here, but I think that internally, implicit and explicit locking are exactly the same. I have never had a problem with it, but then again, I have never had a high volume app that accessed data shared by a FP2x app.

I wonder if this entire "problem" might be their misunderstanding of the word "buffering". Maybe they've read that you should turn off file server buffering on Novell servers with Fox apps, and therefore think "buffering is bad".

Or maybe their old apps don't have very robust error-handlers if explicit locks fail, and they're looking for a scapegoat.

Still, I'm interested in the technical aspects of any potential problems, since I have one situation where old 2.6 WITH explicit locking has to keep running alongside the new VFP app with buffering for a period of time during transition. I have not had a problem yet.