You need to start somewhere. I started with VPM, and switched to Mere Mortals myself. I looked at the base framework from VFP, and thought I wanted/needed a better starting platform.

What components are you interested in? Data, n-tier flexibility, COM, UI, WEB, Reports,....? Maybe if I had more info I could see where you are going towards?

I agree that all the products are tightly coupled, hence they do a good job within their respective FW's.

__Stephen

>Codebook is a fairly tightly coupled standard. In essence it is a framework -- but a public domain one. That is there are certain properties your classes are expected to have with particular names, certain methods with particular names, a particular class hiearchy. Kevin M's Mmortals framework is based on codebook, but with greatly enhanced flexibility and power. His abstract factory enhances this flexibility -- but contains some tight coupling. The tight coupling is not a flaw -- a framework by its nature IS tightly coupled.
>
>This is where a library or a standard that is not a framework would be helpful -- in giving enhanced flexibility.
>
>Roxanne seems to be hinting the next Codebook, Codebook for Com will in essence be a library and a set of standards rather than a Framework.
>
>>What ever happened to "Codebook Compliant?"
>>
>>__Stephen
>>
>>

---

>>
>>>>Hi Gar,
>>>>
>>>>Having had developed my own framework, I can say how difficult it would be to achieve what you are suggesting. One way it could work would be to create some sort of framework consortium and achieve a consensus on component interfaces and behaviors. Components could then be swapped and it wouldn't matter who developed the component(s) as long as they abide by the standards. Actually, this could be a boon to the VFP community.
>>>
>>>
>>>It would indeed be a boon to the VFP community. And, as you say extremely difficult to achieve. That is why I don't know if anyone will ever find doing this worthwhile - although Roxannes hint on this same thread has me very hopeful...