>You mean should not be ignored? A lot of these features are fairly simple to accomplish with a VFP solution also.
>
>- Security can be reached by using COM/DCOM/COM+/remote control/ layers which shields the database from the user.

HA HA HA! DCOM is "fairly simple". So, in one case you want xcopy deployment with registering nothing, then you say DCOM is simple. DCOM is not simple to configure, it is also limited to intranets.

>- integraty: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Examples please.

Integrity. Example, write a process with VFP transaction, etc etc that runs for about 3 minutes... Start the process and then UNPLUG the network cable from the PC. Generally this will ruin your data intergrity, since the transaction is actually controled by the PC, not a server there really is no atomicity.

>- Maintainability: In what respect should a VFP solution not be maintainable ?

If the above happened, what do you do? Can you have automatic backs of DBF's while they are in use? SQL Server's low level of corruption makes the database easier to maintain.

>- connectability: In what sense. VFP databases are fairly open and easy to access ?

Ok, try to connect over a 56kb WAN, and run a complex query against several multi-million row tables... Sure, it will work, you'll get your result in the morning... if the connection didn't dump!

>I think you've read the wrong message. I never wanted to imply that a SQL server is not able to accomplish something, but its solution is by far not as optimal and efficient as the VFP one.

I read exactally the above. You can't actually believe that VFP is the optimal and most efficient solution for EVERY problem? Is that what you really believe?

>Also note that I try to keep this general and not to a specific SQL server implementation like MS SQLServer 2000, but more in a general sense that also applies to other Server RDMBS like oracle, DB2, Sybase etc. The examples I gave were ment to see what the SQL Server pros could come up with and my intention was to discuss the outcome in comparison to the VFP solution.

Oh, that's conveinent, now you were talking about ANSI SQL (which isn't a database) but not SQL Server cause it actually has better ways to do things.

You also say VFP is better cause you just copy it to a folder, then you talk about using DCOM for security, which is doable, but not simple.

I'm not sure I know what we are really trying to decide... That VFP not only has it's place, but it is the best solution in ALL situations no matter what?

BOb