John,

Flip it over.

Can SQL build a UI? Nope.. How about a Middle tier business logic object? Ehhhrrhh.. Don't think that's what it's best at. Can VB nativaly build a robust back end data store? Sure, given about 5 years. <g> Remember, by themselves. Go ahead and build your data engine with C or C++ if you wish. Steve Gibson (www.grc.com) builds Windows dialog boxes with Assembler but he's smart. <g>

While VFP surely cannot build an engine as robust as SQL I'd be willing it can get closer than VB.

What I'm saying is that VFP can basically do all three/four parts. That is NOT saying that it is always going to be the best answer but it has a lot more native abilities. Is this axiomatically the best way to go? Well, have you done your research and analysis? <g>

I stand by my assertion that VFP can do all parts in and of itself. And, that this is not necessarily a final proof that it's going to be the best way to go; nor the worst.

Best,

DD



>Trey,
>
>Let's assume for a moment that the data store is a tier. I have not read any substantive material that includes the data store as a tier. However, that does not make that issue fact or fiction. So, let's go with it.
>
>Since the definitions of the User, Business, and Data services are fairly well agreed upon, what would the requirements be for the data-store tier? Does any data store qualify? If so, a text file counts since a text file is a bona-fide data store.
>
>I think at a minimum, the data store has to support a language. Further, the powers of the language have to be served to the outside world by the data store tier. Clearly, this would knock out a text file.
>
>Would SQL Server pass muster? Yes. SQL Server is capable of exposing stored procedures to clients. You can have access to these items via ODBC, OLE-DB, etc.
>
>Would Fox pass muster? I don't think so. Stored procedures are not exposed. There is a very limited subset of the language that is exposed in the ODBC Driver. Sure, you could write a DLL to accomplish a lot of this work. However, that would be in the context of a data-services tier, not the data store tier.
>
>FWIW, I think this is the start of a convincing argument for why Fox-Data would not qualify as data-store tier - assuming such a tier really existed...
>
>Assuming for the moment that the argument is bunk, is there a way we can construe that Fox-Data would count as a 4th. tier. You cannot use the USE statement since that is driven by the UI. You cannot use the USE statment in a middle-tier DLL since the UI cannot "see" the cursor. You could use ADO. However, if all of your tiers are in Fox, my question would by "why would you do this?" If you are in Fox anyway, why not take advantage fo what Fox offers?
>
>
>Your thoughts...
>
>< JVP >
>
>
>>So,
>>
>>Tier 1 = Interface
>>Tier 2 = Business Layer
>>Tier 3 = Data Services
>>Tier 4 = Database
>>
>>I'll see Doug's 3 and raise 1 <g>
>>
>>So what else but VFP can do all *4* tiers?
>>