>>But my gripe is broader - look at last months UT Mag - NET - NET _ NET _ SQl - SQL - SQL - nTier - nTier - nTier - I can see my self trying to convince a 5 node user that "we need to get SQL and spend lots of time writting geeky n-Tier objects"
>
>Oh, no! That's not fair, Terry. 8-)

I have the utmost repect for the Mag - I was referring to a Dan Fox article which hinted that N-Tier is being over sold and (perhaps) over implmented. And - you just did a great job reminding me of that!

But, I also have a fear, that if VFP developers buy into SQl n-Tier and SQL C/S (well, I guess SQL is always C/S) that they'll take our VFP away and turn me into a VB bench programmer (with a stained cubilcle) at a fortune 500 company - ooooh - thats scary:-) - gosh I hate time clocks:-)

>
>But, again, as it has already being said but people a lot more trustworthy than me, like Jim Booth, for example, every application can benefit from a tiered architecture, no matter its size.

Jim's a smart guy and his opinions are worth a listen - but, in my ignorance, I'll have to disaggree with his "every application" caveat.

>
>Finally, it's not true that you have to "spend lots of time writting geeky n-Tier objects". Once you have your framework architected that way, you can develop as quickly as with any well-written framework. But using n-tier, you have many advantages, like flexibility, better quality control posibilities, and many more.

I'm sure MS will do well with n-Tier!
>
>I really recommend you to read some of our articles on the topic and see what's this about. It's not something that have to add complexity, but actually make things easier to develop and mantain.
I've seen too many hour glasses to be convinced it's always the best - many of the ones I've seen are clunkers - very expensive clunkers.