Thanks for opening the door Ken.....

What will be interesting is that you will get loads of requests for what people WANT...but they will not be able to articulate WHY.

Case and Point - Craig's knee jerk/lap dog post.

You do realize Ken - that nobody is going to be able to articulate a compelling reason why such a utility would make sense. And...if it is nothing more than something that uses smoke and mirrors to get around COM/Interop - then BFD....I would assume this woudl be something like the web-service generator - which is an xBase add-in - and not something that is native to the product that would cause the runtime to balloon over its already bloated size...

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you....

I cannot wait to read the posts!!!

PS..

Mr. Goff did raise an interesting question re: VFP 10. Did Mr. Crozier quote you accurately? Does this mean there will be a VFP 10?????



>>I think Ken eluded to some research that was being undertaken by the VFP team in this area in one of his newsletters/forum.
>
>I didn't mention it in a letter, but to individuals at conferences asking about .NET usage with VFP. We have a prototype of a utility allowing VFP to call .NET Framework classes without having to subclass or create COM objects from the .NET Framework classes. We are not ready to discuss or release any further details, it is just an experiment, and what I am asking from VFP developers is for them to tell me what .NET Framework classes they would want to be able to instantiate and use (and why) from within VFP without having to subclass and COM wrap them first.