Hi Bob,

I've interspersed my comments with yours...

>>SNIP
>Jim, what you are talking about here, is something I brought up, a few months ago and still am totally on your side. For various reasons (not stated here)
>but I do have experience with other systems. (informix, 4d, MPE and not to mention a few others.)
Thanks. My apologies if I have 'stolen' your idea. I guess that many of us have had a similar wish for a long while now.

>and I have a few opinions myself on this.
>1 VFP should have a server module, Becuase then, communicating with the server over the internet, is a real possibility, (unlike using flat Dbc's dbf)

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Do you mean using VFP code in web pages to access VFP data or do you mean something else?

>2 Application server technology. the Client app should be installed on the server, and updated auto updated to the client, upon bootup.

Would you agree that this is a separate issue/wish? It sounds like it to me.

>3 the obsious Security.... Table and maybe even field level security....

Because this doesn't exist today in basic VFP, I hope you agree that this is also a separate wish. I take the point though, that this wish probably amplifies the need for some additional effort in this area.

>4 The server could be licenced by connected user (much like any modern database licencing fee schedule.)

This is an area where I DISAGREE. It is surely the more modern approach and it would certainly generate more revenue for MS. But VFP remains 'the poor man's database system' (at least in my opinion) mainly for small to medium sized businesses, and one of the things that makes it such is its licensing 'features'. As I said in my original, I could countenance a separate license per processor for this specific component, but that's as far as I would go on the matter myself.

>
>The server should be odbc compliant, like SQL server, but features could be added, that address VFP specific issule (like deleted records). boleen values .t. and .f.

I suppose so. I'll include this in the final details (unless others have good reason not to).

>
>The method currently to store blobs should be fixed, with a VFP server, so Blobs are actually downloaded correctly to a vfp cursor.

Can you please expand further on this one?

>A much better VFP remote view, technology should be devised to allow for chaning the server files without totally trashing the remote views. Also going this way, would almost elim the need for remote views, becuase all the views' would be stored on the server.

Again I think the trashed views problem is another wish, possibly even really a bug fix request. On the other hand, your point is well taken as regards the views stored in the 'server'-accessed databases. Another benefit.

Jim Nelson
SNIP