Hello Everyone,

I develop/maintain a large app written in FPW2.6 using the Codebook 2.6 framework. I want to try to create a VFP Codebook based application using live, current 2.6 tables (in VFP views) that are simultaneously used by the 2.6 application. This means that the VFP Codebook would need to use the Cdbk2.6 "NetID()" function to generate the cID key values expected by the 2.6 system.

I wish to develop a VFP Codebook application based on the live 2.6 data where any new records, updates and deletions can be read by the 2.6 system as though the changes had been made by the 2.6 application. The 2.6 system will take an age to re-write and I want to attempt to add some new functionality using VFP Codebook. Obviously the data, will be sent back to the 2.6 system.

CT raised the possibility of a problem with the VFP Refresh() function. I loaded a simple 2.6 table in a VFP view. The table had a cID C(9) field and a cTest C(10) field. The cID field was idexed in 2.6. I was able to create/update records in VFP which were sent back to the 2.6 table. I also called the VFP Refresh() function which did not complain so long as there were unique values in the 2.6 table's cID field (acting as the primary key).

Has anyone done anything similar? Is there anything that may stop this requirement happening? Any comments very much appreciated.

Best

Gary

<<I develop/maintain a large app written in FPW2.6 using the Codebook 2.6 framework. I want to try to create a VFP Codebook based application using live, current 2.6 tables (in VFP views) that are simultaneously used by the 2.6 application.>>

Hi Gary,

A colleague and I did this with no problems. Only differences being that the FPW2.6 app was not written in CB and we upgraded one module of it to VFP3.0 (using CB). The client is still currently using the 2.6 app and the VFP3.0 CodeBook app simultaneously with (knock on wood) no problems. Because the 2.6 app was not in CB we had to abandon the newId() function and generate unique id's the hard way. So, the long and short of it is: yes, it's possible and no, I don't know of any pitfalls.

HTH-

Jenny B.

JLI Data Management

Jenny Brown

JennyLBrown@Compuserve.com