Mike,

>>Ah... you mean like .Top, .Left, .Width, .Height etc propeties. However would adding just these few properties significantly reduce lighweightness ?? I don't know. It would be nice if we can get some info from the VFP team what the reason behind this issue is.

>I think the reason has more to do with the new COM server features that are only accessible through code. Check the help file for DEFINE CLASS and check out the new clauses available. I suppose some of the stuff could be done visually (COM attributes and case preservation, for instance), but the new DEFINE CLASS features are a language enhancement.

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately I don't have the VFP 7 beta yet (and don't have the time right now to play with it either).

>Making the session class something you could visually design would entail also reworking the class designer as well. I don't know what the real design reason was, but it could be that it's just too much extra work. :-)

Are you telling that the enhancements made on class definition don't apply to classes in the visual class libraries ? Do we get the opposite from what we have now: You can create more complex classes in PRGs than in VCX libraries ? and, do we get a stronger division between visual classes and classes (such as the session class) ment for COM programming ?

Walter,