Hi Bob,
SNIP
>>
>>>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?
>No. not web pages, at all, but being a server, VFP data could be 'exposed' to the client ' VFP cleint' I was not talking about a web app at all. more traditional client server app technology.

OK, I think I get it. I get the impression that the new "Web Services" feature might already give you what you would like.
>
>
>>>2 Application server technology.
>>Would you agree that this is a separate issue/wish? It sounds like it to me.
>
>This would only be possible if - there was a server app. so breaking it up doent make sense. this is the cart, you are suggesting the horse.

I guess that I'm still not understanding the objective here. I read it as wanting to get the latest version of the application programming into the client machines automatically, as they booted up.
IF that is the case then I certainly agree that that would be very useful. And it might well become far more achievable once this 'server' exists.
On the other hand, people have devised a few relatively painless strategies to beat this problem already.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>If we in the VFP communite really want to have our app grow up, and seriously compete with true enterprise level apps. Then there would be quite a bit of effort/ cost envolved with growing the database platform.... having a free server module. at least in my opinion, does not make good business sense for MS to seriously consider. Why would they, put out VFP as a server, for free, and then have MS Sql at a per user price. I love free stuff. I love using Mysql, and Sendmail, use them both quite a bit... but if we are asking Microsoft for a feature, to grow up the Xbase, it seems to me it would only make sense if they could profit from this type venture.

First, I'm not so sure that VFP needs to "grow up, and seriously compete with true enterprise level apps". I see VFP fitting nicely in the small/medium business setting, large businesses being a nice niche for fancier products.
But I certainly want for VFP to keep in step with the enterprise level apps in terms of functionality! To me that means controls as capable as any enterprise control, capacities within practical small/medium business requirements, security and data accuracy to match any system, etc.
Secondly, I did write that this could be a separately licensed component as I view it. NOT FREE at all! But with cost in line with traditional VFP and most definitely not per seat licensing. The large business niche can afford this and the attendant administrative costs. Our market cannot. At least as I see it.

>
>>>
>>>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?
>
>Using Blobs on a Sql Server, is a way to story binary data, The method - similar to DBf's general field. There is a method - custom method which does work to convert a General field to a Memo, to save the binary data properly, however, its a bit bassakwards to put into pracice._ I use it, but everytime you save a jpg to a sql server blob, you have to convert it and so on. Like I said, it just should be fixed, or the bugs worked out in a VFP server package.

This really sound like it needs fixing regardless of a new 'server' component, if only to let prevalent SQL Server access work cleanly.

I've decided, by the way, to restrict this wish to VFP data only, leaving others to submit their wishes for other RDBMS interface functionality.

Thanks for the help and support Bob.
Jim

>
>Bob Lee