I agree with you 100%. But it seems like it would have been more appropriate for the Whidbey group to default to something other than an Office tool for the local data store. I would have been more impressed if the Whidbey group used de/serialized DataSets in the filesystem by default and completely abstracted away the data store. Using Jet seems like a kind of "developer dumbing down" that we as Microsoft developers have to hear from other camps all the time; the LAMP guys are all over us Microsofties when it comes to this kind of stuff. ;)





>Whidbey personalization works with any database - all you need is a connection string and the right tables in place. Further the whole thing is extensible via providers so you can hook in any mechanism you choose including storing data in an XML file for example.
>
>+++ Rick ---
>
>>I was just looking through the latest issue of Visual Studio Magazine, and there is an article on Whidbey ASP.NET features. One of the new features is automated membership/security management in VS.NET; a tool automatically appears to create a database called ASPNetDB.mdb is made to hold credential and personalization info, with the expectation that the database would be upsized to MsSql when needs grow.
>>
>>The fact that a Jet database was used instead of a VFP one makes me a little sick. I find it hard to believe that in 2004, the "new technology" Whidbey team would use an MDB when the DBC has so many advantages as an ISAM store.
>>
>>I hope someone at the VFP group can make some nose about this.