Here's a try:
For COM debugging in vfp - this technique makes use of the Windows Running Object Table so a GetObject() can be used to reach the required object. Works in XP and 2000. There is an example using it with Excel calling a VFP server and when calling a vfp mtdll from ASP.
http://www.theproblemsolver.nl/download.htm#Debugging .
This technique uses Active Accessibility introduced in VFP 7. It has a complete article describing the process. The problem is that it only works on Windows 2000, not XP:
http://www.theproblemsolver.nl/aspdevelopmentanddebugging/index.htm
>Ack!
>
>Claude, we (and the VFP world) need *atomic* examples. How does a specific command or function operate is the question to be answered.
>
>
>>I hope I'm proven wrong. I will be mailing complete source code for ActiveVFP and will ask Maurice to do the same for his COM debugging code.
>>>Hi Claud,
>>>
>>>Every potential enhancement has it's merits, no doubt. I think you're going to be amazed at what comes out with Europa. As to organized examples, we've pushed to get more and better examples into the docs and solutions samples.
>>>
>>>Anyone who believes that they have some code that shows how best to use a command or function or demonstrates a technique is welcome, encouraged even, to email any of us on the team with the code. We'd love to have more sample code.
>>>
>>>>Honestly, you don't think adding more more web capability and examples to vfp would be an improvement? COM debugging is part of this and has already been done and could be easily added making it a better product. More organized examples of web services/programming in the product would be an improvement(instead of having to dig thru white papers). Web reporting (specifically PDFs) would be an improvement as would being able to print reports directly from an mtdll. Correcting the bug where you can't run EXECScript in an mtdll would be an improvement and on and on.
>>>>These types of improvements, I guess, are probably ruled out in the meetings before they get started. I guess it's because no one is really interested in them, as Ken said...
>>>>>John,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm hard-pressed to recall any feature we've shot down for budgetary reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you kidding???? This is one of main reason why things do not get done. For example, COM Debugging. Technically, it can be done. Would it come at the expense of other things - and thus put the product in the red? That is likely the reason why that feature never made it into the product.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, silly me, I'm here and in all of the enhancement meetings and somehow missed this one. COM debugging has never been seriously discussed AFAIK in my time here.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Almost always, it's one of two issues that cause a feature to be liked but not implemented: Research indicates that it may destabilize or change legacy behavior or it's something that can be easily done now through other means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>COM Debugging does not fit into either of those two categories. It is somewhat of a moot point now - but 4-5 years ago when the feature was added -it was at that point in time the feature should have been added.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wasn't here 4-5 years ago and can't address this knowledgeably.
>>>>>
>>>>>>And not to put too fine a point on it - there is a vested interest in not making the product TOO attractive to the existing user base. After all, if the user base got everything it wanted - there would be less incentive to move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>I disagree. We are here, primarily, to promote VFP and our VFP developer base. Sure, if you're working on a project that VFP is not the best choice for, we'd like you to choose another MS tool, such as .Net. But, again, not once have I been in a discussion where something was not considered because it'd make VFP too attractive. That's just plain silly.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Be extremely careful about articulating reasons why some features get in and other don't. At the very least, those reasons have to pass the smell test.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, John, you should be more circumspect before trying to sow FUD into a situation you have no first-hand knowledge of. Why do I have to be careful posting the honest truth? Frankly, I don't care what you smell from 4,000 miles away. I can't figure what you're saying nor why you're saying it but I can't credit it for being "in the know" nor logical.
>>>>>
>>>>>You serve no one but your own apparently misguided ego when you post stuff like this.