Mr Ivan:

>I don't know why so late, but I just found out that I can have Fox26 tables as free tables in the CodeMine CDE.

Too much surfing and not enough Codemining <s>.

>So converting my 2.6 applications is gonna be fun, as I can have a first step set to having the >application running concurrently to the old, and then deciding for the database back end later >and making the system changes needed.

This very fact was a primary reason why I decided on Codemine in the first place. Because it so easily supports Fox 2.6 tables.

>Any advices from "someone" here who would be more used to this process ?

What kind of advice do you need? Would the advice "just go ahead and do it with 2.6 tables" be the kind of advice you want <bg>.

If you intend to migrate the data to SQL server later and not change the table structures in any way (unlikely - you will probably refactor or enhance the data structures in some way), then creating views based on the local data is the way to go.

If the data will likely change in some way then there is probably little point using local view based on the 2.6 data if you intend to change the data format when you port it to SQL server. In this case, then go right ahead and use the 2.6 tables as they are. This approach certainly makes for RAD. You can get very purist and proper about this and I suppose the theoretical position would be to use local views on 2.6 tables. However, for quick development and getting things up and running on a concurrent basis, there really is no problem using 2.6 free tables "as is".

FWIW, I use data from multiple sources in my CDE's. I have SQL data, local views, VFP tables and free tables and 2.6 free tables in the same CDE. All works in harmony!

If you can think of anything specific, ask away.

HTH

Best