Chuck,

I think you are correct. The code for AccPac SQL however looks like a train wreck in my opinion. From everything I've seen it looks like they just wanted to get it out the door anyway they could. Basically a function wrapper for every single FoxPro command and then a massive find/replace. In other words there appears to be no attempt AT ALL to optimize the application for SQL.

On the upside though it did install and run ok and appears to be several times faster than the VFP version with about 1/20th of the network load. So even though the source looks ugly, moving to AccPac SQL has obvious performance advantages.

Greg

>>reliability ??? I'm guessing your talking about the data. You did not state which versions you are comparing - but the latest I think are the about the same as far as reliability. In the Pro world you get all the source - but some of the code is old (meaning not using the latest foxpro features). AM does provide source but not all and many of the important data routines are not provided (mostly hidden in other classes). But like all VFP programs it is really impossible to hide code from a hacker. But they don't provide the all code. On the other hand AM uses the latest VFP tricks which makes programming a little easier. I also like AM over Pro because the AM code is much easier to read..
>>
>>Better question - which provides a better fit to the client needs. Only the client and you can answer that...
>>
>>John
>
>The last time I looked at Pro I think it was version 7.0 they did NOT release all the code. More like 95% of the code. The only area that bother me was the class that actually communicates to SQL didn't have code and when asked they said they were not going to release it. I don't know if they have changed their minds or not but to me that's a big deal. If there is a bug in it then I as a developer is stuck in the water waiting on them to fix it. Like I said this was before the Best take over of AccPac.