>>>1. Full text search on a single table 10 table over a WAN
>>>
>>>I think its doable. You might have the cleaner solution, but your suggestion that our flexibility tests end after one requirement is entertaining!
>>
>>It is not doable - at least not for you. Considering that a Fox table can only be 2gb in size - I would say you are 8 gb shy...
>
>I don't see why I can't partition the table into multiple files to make it work.
>

I rally don't care if you do...Just keep in mind that if you are trying to argue flexibility - having to partition the table 5x over - and maintain all of the associated index - does not support your argument.

But hey - if you think it does - go for it.

>
Like I said, your solution will most likely be cleaner and take victory on this point. But its only one point. I don't think one single requirement is an indication of how the tests will pan out.
>

Your argument was that Fox would be MORE flexible. All I have to do is find 1 instance where that is true - and your argument is defeated. I can find a lot more - but 1 is all it takes....

>
It means the requirement is even if you develop JvpApp 1.0 with SQL Server 7.0 and JvpApp 2.0 with SQL Server 2000 we should be able to deploy that application to run at the same time for a client.
>

Why don't we just stick with the database issues - as you have your hands full at the moment. You see, your argument was Fox+native Fox Data is more flexible than .NET+SQL Server. As of now - on the data issue alone - your point has been largely defeated - so we really don't need to get into the app aspects of the issue - do we....




>
Yes, once SQL Server is installed. I can think of a scenario where a user accesses an application on a workstation for the first time and the application needs a local datastore to persist offline data between sessions.
>

Lets just stick to the data for the time being. When you can match up with that - then we will talk about app specific issues.


>>My reply to this is that the solution would have to allow simultaneous access to a table by multiple users while re-indexing.
>
>Ok:
>
>4. Maintain indexes on live data
>
>Thats only 4, can you think of anything else?

What are you talking about... you can't do that in Fox either.... If you build an index - you need exclusive use of the table....


>
Enough of your room-temperature responses, thats for sure. I'd really like to see where this leads despite of that.
>

That is like saying - "In spite of dying on the operating table, the patient did rather well in surgery..."

Nice try Mike....

When it gets to some heavy lifting - let me know....this is all light work...

< JVP >