Hi Mike

You wanted others to jump in. I am not doing that, this will be my only comment (I hope <g>).

I am also a lover of VFP and DBF's, and I agree with you that you can do most things with VFP and DBF tables. But to be realistic, when you for instance talk about BIIIG amounts of data, or with MANY users, VFP must pass. But with VFP as front end to a real SQL server you are pretty close to heaven.

With that said, I leave this discussion before Jim Duffy joins it <bg>!


>>>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.
>
>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.
>
>>>I'll add one:
>>>
>>2. We must be able to deploy multiple versions of the platform for multiple versions of the application
>>
>>What does this mean?
>
>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.
>
>>>3. We must be able to create tables on the fly with minimal rights to the Operating System
>>
>>Considering SQL Server has its own security, I could easily deal with that by simply loging on as sa or by creating a user with admin rights - with no effect on the OS.
>
>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.
>
>>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?
>
>And this is my invitation for anyone else reading this to chime in.
>
>>So far, there are at least 2 things Fox is not capable of doing.
>>Let me know when you have had enough...
>
>Enough of your room-temperature responses, thats for sure. I'd really like to see where this leads despite of that.