Terry:

AFAIK, MM.NET is the only "low level" framework player out there. It is not perfect, but I believe that with time Kevin & al will get it to where it will be almost as good as some of the VFP frameworks out there. I personally use Promatrix for my VFP work, but I know that the others are quite good, as well. I chose Promatrix because there was a third party product called xCase2VPM, which brings and updates my VFP data model seamlessly from xCase. I just don't understand why .NET framework developers have ignored this very important functionality. Setting up my data model with a program that is designed and optimized for it, and then moving the data model over to VFP automatically is such a time saver that it alone makes it worth the investment. But beyond that I also have the opportunity to design my data model visually, set all the nitty gritty stuff (like input masks, lookups and validations, etc., and make sure that the critical moving parts in my data store are optimized and set up properly.

Kevin has promised an (generic) interface like that in the near future, and I for one sure hope it is coming sooner rather than later!

Pertti

>Hi Pertti,
>
>Thanks for the reply. From you comments I take it you have also been spoiled by VFP. Maybe the day will come that .Net will be as productive as VFP, with a good framework. It’s only the VFP programmers that appreciate what RAD development really is. I have been involved with user groups in south Florida since the formation of the Gold Coast FoxPro UG in 1991. Over the years we have evolved into .Net groups that meet in Tampa, Orlando, West Palm Beach, Boca Raton and Miami. When I meet new .Net developers and ask them if they have ever used a commercial application framework, I usually get a blank stair. They just don’t get it. Kevin’s experience with VFP is the main reason I purchased the product. If anyone knows what a framework should be it would be an author of a good VFP product.
>
>I hope over time the missing parts are added to MM.Net. even if they are implemented via other third party controls. Despite its shortcomings, your success with MM.Net encourages me to continue to work at overcoming the pesky UI issues.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Terry Carroll
>
>
>
>
>>Terry:
>>
>>I have a few production web apps running that I created with MM.NET. I must say that the framework on the web side at least is still missing some crucial pieces, like complete CRUD (CreateReadUpdateDelete) -functionality built into the framework. Grids are a pain, too, especially if you hope to edit in place. Then there are of course the missing UI pieces, such as tabs, toolbars, text boxes with inputmasks, etc. These I had to develop and figure out myself, and it was not all that much fun. The good news is that ALL of that and then some is provided by Infragistics, which Kevin is currently trying to integrate into MM.NET. At this time I don't know what the timeline for this is, as it clearly is not a trivial task (especially if you want to make it right -- versionproof, inheritanceproofed, etc.proof)
>>
>>Another thing sorely missing is metadata interface. So, no active datadictionary to be had here, which is too bad.
>>
>>The last two minuses are not really as much Kevin's oversights as missing parts in .NET as a whole. As I understand, next .NET version will be much more datacentric than the current one, but I still don't know if it will have a built-in "hookable" datadictionary that would allow direct integration with database CASE tools, such as the excellent xCase.
>>
>>At the end of the day, MM.NET will definitely give you a big productivity boost, once you learn the basic philosophy of it and understand the idiosyncrasies and workarounds of .NET, Web, and MM.NET development. With time (any day now!), MM.NET will be significantly enhanced with these and many other features, and if you already know how to use it if and when that happens, you are way ahead of the game in .NET development. With a good, mature framework like (the near future) MM.NET, .NET development will (someday) be (almost) as easy as VFP <g>.
>>
>>So, I'd say go for it and start learning. It may pay off big time in the near future.
>>
>>
>>Pertti
>>
>>
>>
>>>I would like to hear from anyone who is using the MM.Net framework in a production Web application, if so would you reccomend the product?
>>>
>>>Terry Carroll