Hi, Terry.

>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!

Don't now about that article, but by the author name, he's probably biased. 8-)

>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:-)

Fear not. Believe me that VFP is MANY times a better tool to develop n-tier apps than VB, both on the data, middle, and user tiers.

>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.

You should try to follow his reasoning. I'd be better trust in a smart guy knowledge than in my own ignorance. ;-)

>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.

I don't understand that last sentence. Do you mean that n-tier apps are slower? That's not true at all. N-tier apps can be slower of faster than monolithic apps, just depending on how well they are designed and built. This architecture issue is not guarantee of performance at all, but in some circumstances, n-tier can be a LOT faster than a monolithic app.

I think you think n-tier architecture is something complex and snobish. This is something like saying that OOP is slower and most costly than procedural code. Please, take the chance to know about it a bit more. I think you'll realize that you have some basic misunderstandings. If not, I'll be glad to know your good reasons against n-tier.

Best regards,