Personally i preffer to concentrate
>on the data model first, since you will not be using an OO Database.
>I don't care too much for this, since ER diagrams are not quite
>far from OO diagrams, indeed, i've seen some OO gurus doing
>something like this when a relational database is used (Chapter
>10 OO Design, Booch [basically you do it too Arnon :)]).

well, yes and no - (u didn't really think this would go unanswererd did u? ;) ) VFP is indeed a RDBMS and not an OODBMS. IMHO as well, ER are not that far from OO diags - this is why I don't mind using ER notations
but I am creating an object model (because I don't seperate data from code) and in the end I get both , the Data model and a good notion on
what the application will look like and how the different componnets will interact

> Also remember
>that OO design is not intended to be a waterfall model, so
>don't be so rigid in the design of your first classes. That is,
>you can design a little, prototype and then refine your model.

I think the move from the waterfall model is because of RAD rather than
use of OO - u can build a perfectly valid OO model in a waterfall manner

btw, re : rational.com - did u read Ed Yourdon," Object Oriented System Design - an integrated approach" ?

Arnon