Hi, Jim.

>Record-by-record is a "flawed concept" only because Microsoft is pushing SQL Server and SQL Server works another way. [I know, there's more in life than SQL Server BUT they are either earlier or followers of the BIG MACHINE (MS)]
>You will re-think this when "remote" is meaningless, which is sure to happen.
>There's that word "monolithic" again... right out of the MS marketing book.
>Are "permanently connected" systems the only designs available to VFP developers using DBFs?????

I'm sorry, Jim, but I'm afraid you're off-base when you mistake architectural principles with MS marketing jargon. They are Johny-come-lately on that, and while you accuse me of propagate MS-marketing, MS people always care about me not following their book, although they respect me at the end (they kept me in the MVP program, at least).

>Sounds like more marketing FUD to me... "monolithic", "at your own risk", "trying to use xBase over the web". I suppose that a 'monolithic' application that is not VFP is not a 'monolithic' application?

Why everything you don't like is labeled as "marketing"? Of course you can build monolithic apps in Java, .NET or Delphi. And they have their role, so this is not a bad word at all. But the web is not the place for this kind of applications, that's all. This is the point I kept all the time during this long debate.

Regards, Jim.