>Can be done or you have done it?

Both.

>I am not saying that n-tier apps cannot be written in Fox. I know they can as I have done it. In the scenario you outline, there cannot be "direct" access to the data.

No "direct" access (by the "consumer"): disconnected data access via XML (as the protocol).

>Also, just communicating over sockets does not necessarily vitate the "monolithic" nature of an app. For example, I have written numerous apps that have used sockets - by way of socketX - to send notifications to various app components.

Not just "notifications"; DATA. Same concept as "sending data" via SOAP over an intranet/internet.

>This was a 2-tier VFP app that for the most part - was monolthic in nature because elements of data access, business rules, and UI were bound up into the same package.

" ... a 2-tier app that .... was monolithic ... "

Hmmm ... I had already posed the question to you earlier whether "an app could be both n-tier and monolithic", and got no answer ...

If your "package" had data access, business ruless, and UI bound into it, I maintain that it was "single-tier", not 2-tier. Sending some "notifications" does not constitute "2-tier" ... At best, some sort of "broadcast" setup.

>Again, at no point did I say that mono-lithic was "bad" - that is a conclusion on your part.

I drew no conclusion: I asked "you" whether monolithic was "bad" ... I also asked you whether "triggers" were monolithic, and got no answer.

> Rather, I did say that mono-lithc apps - from an architectual standpoint - are not as sophiscated.

And I questioned your assertion that any app that used a "native" DML was automatically "monolithic".

> Also, it is important to deliniate between wheter an app is physically and/or logically monolithic.

I was talking "physical", and NOT monolithic ("... separate machines ..."); even though I was using a "native" DML.

>
>>
>I can place VFP objects on separate machines (where one object is using DML on "native data"), that talk to each other over a wire via Sockets, and you maintain that "this" is still "monolithic" ?
>>