Jay,

>George --
>
>In general, I don't see anything in my message that, if developed properly, would cause a problem with backward compatibility. Even the report as an object. HTML has gone through the same evolution -- static representation to a dynamic, interactive document model -- without a hiccup.

The reporting process is (at least from my POV) a rather complex one. Several years back (in FPW), I reverse engineered the reporting process for the purpose of producing text files from the reports. It wasn't pretty. I don't know how John Koziol managed to do it without recursion. Perhaps he placed limits on the depth of data groupings and their sub-total lines. I couldn't. But I digress...

Suffice it to say that it's probably complex enough that significant changes would be required in both the reporting engine and the designer. I certainly can't say with any degree of certitude, but perhaps what would be necessary might mean major changes in the meta data. Perhaps changes to such a degree that there would be no way to reliably move older reports forward into the new format.

Not being a member of the Foxteam, I really don't know and all of this is speculation. I would, however, speculate on one more thing. Almost assuredly they evaluate the risk/reward/utility/ease of implementation factors and, perhaps have come to the conclusion that based on that, some of the changes that have been requested don't meet the minimum criteria for implementation.

>But, we're addressing the strategy of upgrading VFP rather than tactics, so let me shift gears.
>
>In general, I agree with what you say. I think all of us active Fox developers have benefited greatly from UT, and have enhanced our toolset with favorite solutions to familiar problems.
>
>But, we all have to balance building the toolset with building solutions. Many times we, or the community, are not able to develop the pieces that we would expect in the product and that our development would benefit from. And the lack of some tools, that one would expect to come in the package, is a serious barrier to adoption by new users.
>
>If SQL Server came with the View Designer -- people would mock it and justly so.
>

Certainly.< s >

>What I'd like MS to do is acknowledge that VFP is a mature product. Let's make it mature! Bring in the best of breed of 3rd party solutions, plug in the holes, fix the bugs.

The thing that I'm encouraged by is the increasing stability. With each version and SP, the phrase "most stable version to-date". The movement is certainly in that direction.

Bringing in 3rd party solutions wouldn't be new to the VS box. It came with InstallShield Express, and, if I recall correctly, previous versions included Crystal Reports. So I'd say that what you're talking about is a distinct possibility.

As for bugs, I've always taken the position that it's my responsibility when I encounter a bug to give the Foxteam the most amount of information I can so that they can squash it. There have been times when, upon running across something I think is a bug, I take it home with me (I'm not one to take the office to the house, so this runs against my grain). At home, I'll make sure that the bug is replicatable. If it isn't, then I relegate it to the "George Is An Idiot" box.< g > If it is, I pass along as much information as I possibly can to the Foxteam.

>If everyone else is having problems on the 'cutting edge', perhaps those who want a robust and powerful database development environment will find a mature product attractive. That to me is important -- giving the product a name, a purpose, modifying the product along those lines, and marketing the h*ll out of it.
>
>I think if MS relegates VFP to only current developers and current developers
>needs, it has, in effect, killed the product. I think we as a community are so concerned about our own livelihood and our own needs, that we neglect the world outside us. We're like a church that has declining membership and we keep asking "why don't people join our fellowship?"

I don't see this happening (MS relegating it to only current developers). I do think that the best way to get the "word" out is to consistently deliver solutions in both a stable application and in a timely manner. Word of mouth still does count.

>There are many applications which work well with VFP out of the box, or, using an n-tier approach, ready themselves for deployment in other than a fat client situation. And, we need to think beyond the borders of the US. The international use we see of VFP suggests that it is a viable product worldwide. That may be a market that can be addressed also by MS.
>
>At this time, we all wonder what the future holds -- well, I guess that's been the case for some time now, huh? Some thoughts -- all in the hope of vitality for VFP and for the community %)
>

Thanks for the feedback.

Regards,