John

>>It was a hypo.<<

No, it's plain incorrect. Are you sure you know how RVs work?

>>Comparing SP's to a product is not an accurate analogy. SQL to Oracle is. SQL to Cache is. SP's are a feature of each. At least, I gather from what you are saying that Cache as SP abilities.<<

The analogy is a response to your tactic of saying "I don't know about Cache, never heard of it" as if that is a rebuttal of the point. 'fraid not.

>>Apart from that, I don't understand where else the analaogy can go. As for the specfics of Cache, that is off-topic...<<

I'll try again. If you choose a mechanism to improve performance and Cache has even better performance, the "specifics" of Cache are not something you can ignore if you want your decision to appear to be based on sound consideration of options. I, on the other hand, *can* safely ignore the specifics of Cache if I use RVs. Seems simple to me.

>>The rest of your post strays too far off-topic. Again, the topic relates the pros and cons of RV's v. SP's.<<

Really? I thought the topic of the thread was "How to answer negative VFP Attitude?" and that I had pulled you up for calling VFP's Remote access "lousy" in this of all threads. What you describe as "the topic" is in fact the point you need to prove to justify your absolute criticism of VFP. I don't think you have. Feel free to sign off, but you haven't proven your position. This confirms my growing suspicion that the "performance" issue is a set of Emperors' Clothes. It may be measurable in microseconds or with 10,000 simultaneous users but with a properly constructed "real life" database system as used by most businesses all over the world... I really don't think it rates. In which case, I would have thought that the easiest and most flexible access method should be chosen. Perhaps that's what "lousy" means these days. Sure we can disagree on that.

Regards

JR