Ken,

>Because I have ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED - long ago - that those are an acceptable use of RVs.

OK, so there is agreement that RVs have their uses...for example, smaller apps, multiply-backended apps, and for apps where the quick up-and-running nature of RVs is useful (prototypes, etc.)

>I would suggest that a MUCH bigger concern (in general) is multiple front ends which is one of the big advantages with SPs.

And you are entitled to your opinion. In my experience, as it would seem with John R's, the experience is reversed...more backends than front-ends. I can give you several examples if you need them. Also, Erik has been supporting the idea of using a middle layer which can access multiple back-ends and be utilized by multiple front-ends. This was countered with a comment from one of the SP crowd (I think it was you, Ken) saying that very SQL-standard SPs are easily portable to server-backends. I wholeheartedly agree.

Anyway, it would seem we all understand where we are all coming from, we all agree on the good/bad points of SPs vs. RVs, and we each have our own unique needs when deciding which to use.

>
>>And why "short term"?
>because the issues I excepted above are cost/time based - that is - if you have enough time and money - the SP/SPT non-RV method is better. BTW - I readily acknowlege that budget/time is often the key issue - and again - that is why I excpeted those situations.

Again, I completely agree.

>>Here's one for you: say you have a finance package that may run using VFP tables for small clients but may also need to run on Oracle, SQL Server or others like Interbase to be acceptable to bigger clients.
>
>Well - my data objects query local VFP data as well as they do B/E - so it is a non-issue for me. In either case my "front end" whether physical or just logical uses "SPT cursors" for mapping even if those cursors came straight from VFP with no ODBC layer. I will probably rewirte this even further to map my controls to a data object directly at some point.

Sounds cool. For your needs, the SPs work, and you have developed (or already had) a means to write to a VFP-native backend as well. Sounds excellent.

>John - you're losing bud - give it up ... I think this one's over ...

OK, I guess I have a gripe about this...what exactly is John R. "losing", especially considering that since the thread started, you (and others) have given into "exceptions" where you agree that RVs are useful (certainly far from the "lousy" connotation they were given that launched the extended nature of this thread in the first place?) Since when are UT threads about competition? I for one have gotten a lot of info from this thread, so I sure count myself among the "winners". Sorry to rant, but when someone takes a discussion and turns it into a battle to be "won" or "lost" -- well, it just detracts from the informational purpose of such an endeavor.

I have decided that SPs, SPT, and RVs are all very useful and very wonderful things. Mix in some ADO and maybe some XML, come up with a good plan for what tiers do what logic, and you are on to a good plan for development -- all the way up to an enterprise level. Thanks to everyone who spent time and energy adding to this valuable discussion!

JoeK