George,

>>>PLEASE. . .I am not interested in non-MS employees stating:
>>>1) Why MS would never do this;
>>>2) How this would directly conflict with MS SQL Server sales;
>>>3) Other negative reasons on behalf of MS.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, any comments by MS staff, assumed to represent personal (not corporate) opinion, is most welcome, regardless. This would hopefully include additional development of the concept.
>>>
>>>Please offer your comments, criticism, or variations on the following:
>>>
>>>I would like to see the next version of VFP endowed with 'server-like' processing capabilities for both xBase (oh, how I hate that term) and SQL-based I/O commands...
>>
>>Hi Jim,
>>
>>Yesterday I found this thread, which started at 20-09, and ended at 26-09. After a few hours of reading it all, here is my contribution, not knowing whether you have already decided for the wishlist yes/no.
>>Note that the below is a response to all of it.
>>
>>Why this would be needed ?
>>
>>

Old code
>>In general, yes, this is sort of nonsense, because it is not hard to incorporate SQL from the beginning (George). I won’t decide for the fastest way of development, but what I can say is that this shoud be subjective to the quality, openness etc. However :
>>Where this may be the general standpoint, there are (quite) a few out there, just not having the possibility to re-write all the code, and where the new code will differ in terms of structure (logic). The structure can remain the same, but performance will (highly) degrade.
>>Like you started the thread with some expectations of potential respondents, I can add one : it is no argument at all to say that one should use the latest techniques, and therefore this idea would be stupid.
>
>Peter,
>
>Since I assume you're referring to me in the above, just a short response. My statement was that designing for a backend server as opposed to native tables requires a different design paradigm. Unfortunately, there are (apparently) some folks who don't realize this and try treat the backend in the same manner they did native tables. So, in short, I agree whole heartedly with the above.

APPARENTLY being that "some folks" let me say that I KNOW that it is a different design. I thought that I made this clear earlier, but I guess that swipes are in order.
It simply isn't necessarily either that hard or impossible to do it.

At one time there were plans for a FoxPro Server Edition. I've just gotta believe that they weren't going to reinvent the language to make it so.
I also feel that there is a possibility that they already had (have) code in the "base" toward this end.

It's a matter of pessimism vs. optimism, and in this case I see the glass as half full. And hopefully I've said all this without swipes toward anyone.

Jim