>From a technical point, a DBF is different from a cursor in a quite a few aspects. So your statement is incorrect.

>What do you "that said"??? In all material respects, a VFP cursor IS a dbf. This is a first principal. If you don't get this, there is no sense going on. If you don't this - then I would submit you should the LAST person claiming that others do not know what they are talking about.

I´m not quite getting what you want to say here. a DBF is an implementation of a file storing data. Most cursors only exist in memory. Cursors are always local (unless you force the temp files to be on a network, and the cursors get quite large so they have to be flushed to disk).

Generally speaking when writing a networked database application, the DBFs are stored on a network drive, suspectible to network failure, (index) curruption, performance issue, etc. With local cursors you don´t have that problem at all, because they´re local.

- Cursors don´t suffer from corruption.
- Cursors are always local
- Cursors generally reside in memory
- Cursors at most live durring the run of the application
- Cursors are not listed in the database cataloge (database container)

That pretty muchs rules out about all disadvantages you have when dealing with DBFs.

IF you cannot see the differnce between a DBF and a cursor, there is no sense in it. Then you´ve proven for the whole VFP community that you really don´t know what you´re talking about.

Walter,