Hi albert,

According to the docs, this falls short when using containership. Oddly enough there are a few things you can't define with PRGs (containership) and a few things you can't define with VCX files (As I recall correctly some new options in VFP 7).

The idea of it is just to build an easy bridge between the strategies. Well in a sense this is XML since it is ASCII and you can describe a table in it.

Walter,

>There is no need to use XML. There is already a standard text representation of a VFP class:
>
>

>DEFINE CLASS ClassName1 AS ParentClass [OLEPUBLIC]
>  [[PROTECTED | HIDDEN PropertyName1, PropertyName2 ...]
>     [Object.]PropertyName = eExpression ...]
>  [ADD OBJECT [PROTECTED] ObjectName AS ClassName2 [NOINIT]
>     [WITH cPropertylist]]...
>  [[PROTECTED | HIDDEN] FUNCTION | PROCEDURE Name[_ACCESS | _ASSIGN]
>  | THIS_ACCESS [NODEFAULT]
>     cStatements
>  [ENDFUNC | ENDPROC]]...
>ENDDEFINE
>

>
>
>>Hi gerry,
>>
>>>A library is a library, whether it's in the form of a .PRG or a .VCX.
>>>
>>>It's like asking a "user": "Would you like an SQL Server or an Oracle backend ?" Huh?
>>>
>>>Some people don't "want" to give up VCX's, etc. ... but I'm still waiting for a single concrete reason as to why they need to be kept around (other than "that's they way it's always been").
>>
>>Comming to think of the issue. Since, tables can be described with XML, and XML is sort of an ASCII format. Can XML fill the GAP between PRGs and VCX based classes ???
>>
>>Walter,