Tom,

I think you may be correct. It's not a big deal really.

>Doug;
>
>If I remember correctly, Tom Rettig developed his own version of the DBCX and placed it in the Public Domain. Mike Feltman and so many others came out with their version. I could be wrong but it does seem we had two paths to choose. I have all my literature and letters concerning this at home.
>
>I recall something happening during the first week of November 1995 during the Flash Road Show (Codebook 3.0) in San Francisco with the DBCX being released, and I believe Tom's version was already out there.
>
>Somehow it seems the DBCX and its different flavors went the way of TRO. Well, almost! :)
>
>Tom
>
>>Joe,
>>
>>Also, Tom Rettig had some pretty strong convictions as to some of the details of how DBCX should be implemented and there were some differing opinions among the others so this held things up a bit.
>>
>>>Hi Mike,
>>>
>>>Actually, we were invited to join the group that was planning to develop tools that were Codebook for VFP compliant or compatible and that would use the DBCX technology. In fact, Codebook for VFP and the DBCX were open standards that anyone could have adopted. As I recall, there were going to be criteria established as to whether a tool was Codebook "compliant" or "compatible".
>>>
>>>There were basically two reasons that we chose not to follow the Codebook and DBCX paths:
>>>
>>>1) The Codebook compliant idea originated in late 1994 / early 1995 before Codebook for VFP was published. Since we did not know in early 1995 what Codebook for VFP was going to be, we decided that we would follow our own methodologies. We were simply reluctant to jump onto something that was not yet defined. Also, we needed to get going developing ProMatrix for VFP and felt we couldn't wait for Codebook. (If I recall correctly, Codebook for VFP was published in September or October of 1995.)
>>>
>>>2) With regard to DBCX, the reasons were much the same. The DBCX standard was not fully defined at the time we needed to start developing ProMatrix for VFP. Also, we already had our own data dictionary extension methodology, and we thought it made sense to continue with that methodology.
>>>
>>>As it turned out, I think we made the correct decisions. I don't believe that the Codebook compliant concept was followed through by most of the software vendors who originally signed onto it. Also, I think the VFP world has probably benefited from the diversity of having frameworks like VPM, VMP and Codemine that aren't Codebook compliant.
>>>
>>>It's been awhile since I thought back to 1995, the time all these things were being thought through. It reminded me of something that I think has turned out to be negative for the FoxPro world. I recall the DevCon of 1995 in Phoenix, and I recall talking to Doug Hennig about his VFP plans for AppMaker. Doug indicated that he wasn't sure he would develop a version of AppMaker for VFP. Subsequently, Doug did not. Given the way things have turned out, I've always felt that Doug should have gone ahead with AppMaker for VFP. It would certainly have been an even more interesting world if he had.
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>Joe