>This reminds me of when you tried the whole "I can write a more scaleable app in Fox/DBF's than you can in SQL Server"....

You've "quoted" me twice now with this and I suspect its a misquote designed to mislead, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to your over-glorified memory of your own conversations.

You must be refering to:
thread#851534

Just as in this thread, in that thread you thought that the 2gb table limit is the end all to be all argument. In a contest of flexibility with many criteria you attempted to ignore all criteria except the table size limit. Despite how painfully that reeks of an attempt intended to mislead I'll again chalk that up to your simple mind and not hold that against you.

That said, using a webservice to access DBFs hides all of the complexity of horizonally partitioned data files. It may even have the side benefit of enhanced performance if data is separated in files by current vrs historical meaning and the webservice is able to distinguish between the users requests.

This of course ignores the possibility of vertical partitioning which is even less of a design issue.

In any case, your ability to quote me directly is very representative of your ability to engage in productive conversation.

Unless you have anything to say for yourself that is compelling enough to prompt my response, we're done here.