John,

>>>Given the numerous bugs/things that have been broken in VFP 8 - that is a non-starter.
>>
>>
>Like what. I'm not aware of anything major that has been broken in VFP8 ?

>There is a signficant bug with the group by clause. Somehow - something that had been working for a long time managed to break in 8. Also, I have encountered a number of C5 errors when XP theme support is on. I'll leave it to you to search the numerous posts that have been made here.

I'm not aware about a bug in the GROUP BY clause. Are you sure you don't mean the default behaviour change of the group by clause ? See the SET ENGINEBEHAVIOUR 70 for more details.


>The view designer does not have anything to do with the cursor adapter class. I'm not sure what you're telling me here. There are a number of improvements in the View designer:


>You have always been able to define views with more complex sql in such a way that would render the view designer moot. You can't say there is a true 2-way tool unless you could define ANYTHING in text - and have it rendered graphically.

This is by definition rather impossible since you I would have not be able to imagine how to handle UNIONS or the complex possible SQL SELECT structures possible in SQL - Server. The improvement here is that the VD does not crash anymore on complex queries, but instead gives you the opportunity to define the code in text form. And since when do you care about the GUI part. With SPT you even have a GUI part for simple queries. With SPT you'll have to do with putting everything into one lengthy string.

For complex view definitions it even won't make sense to render it graphically since it is way easier to figure it out by text. Even today I view and change most definitions by text because it just much easier.

>SQL views work with SQL update or SQL Delete and SQL insert. With the cursor adapter you can use anything you want.

>Somewhat gets to my point about cursoradapater - which is kind of like the remote views slightly more sophisticated cousin.

The point was about views, not about cursor adapters.

>That may be your impression - but the facts would indicate otherwise. The fact that you clasify the view designer as a true "2 way tool"

I also indicated that the GUI part is not able to reflect complex view definitions. For all less complicated definitions it is a true two way tool. Only a small fraction of the views you want to design would be too complex to fit in the GUI part of the VD.

-I could say the same thing to you. The fact is - the objectional issues that I have articulated about RV's are still applicable today.

One of your issues was the uselessness of the VD. This point has been improved significantly as we don't have to use third party VD anymore. I asked you in Re: Remote View vs SQL Pass through Thread #572183 Message #575023 if you would reevaluate your standpoint if the VD was improved, hence my question.

>I have had to deal with RV's extensively. That said - I have used other data access methodoligies extensively. I have had the opportunity to use, evaluate, and compare the various methodologies. While RV's can "work" - but nonetheless - they are inferior to other methodologies out there. Like anything - indvidual milage may vary. That said - when you look at both sides of the ledger - when you look at the big picture - there are far more reasons to eschew RV's than to embrace them. There are 100's of posts over the past 5 years or so from me on the topic. There is no need for me to enumerate those reasons again.

You don't. All I do remember was that one of your main complaints was about the VD. Since IMO that complaint should not be valid anymore you standpoint seems to have lost at least some value.

Walter,