Jon,

>>Thank you. No transactions is the killer. I could live without the others.
>
>Alejandro,
>
>On the heels of not having transactions, your app would probably be more prone to data corruption problems using free tables than if you used a DBC with RI.

That's an interesting take on the matter, and I'd like to hear more.
I find it interesting, for instance, that one of the few VFP bugs 'in the public domain' relates specifically to corrupted .DBFs CAUSED BY USE OF TRANSACTIONS. Then there is also the spectre of TRANSACTIONS encountering difficulties (I don't think it can be called a "bug") in peer-to-peer situations.

My take on the matter is that if Alejandro can get by without transactions - especially considering application usage in distant backwood areas - he would be wiser to do so, in which case the arguments for a .DBC in the application seems to evaporate.

regards

>
>Laterness,
>Jon