Refactoring note: I changed the name of this topic from "ScalingVisualFoxproData" since this topic is (so far) about an article that's alledgedly unrelated to the topic. Thus I recommend we use ScalingVisualFoxproData to talk about scaling Visual FoxPro Data, thus the topic name change.-- Steven Black
The following refers to the "Case Study" article in FoxPro Advisor, Page 14 that is titled "Scale Visual Foxpro" on the cover, and subtitled "Manage large amounts of complex data. Use ActiveX controls to build robust Visual FoxPro applications" on the inside cover (page 4) but titled "ActiveX Adventures by David Griebel" in the article itself.
Quick question. Your cover story on page 14 is billed on the cover as scaling VFP to large amounts of complex data. Yet, when I read the article, it in reality, was an article on how to implement the ActiveX List View control.
A few points...
One of the thesis in Dave's article is that he uses the List View ActiveX Control instead of the VFP native List View control because of its( the ActiveX version) simplicity. I understand that the ActiveX List View may have more capabilities than the native Fox control. But simpler? I don't think so..
The article was supposed to deal with large amounts of complex data. I would ask where this part of the piece is? There was absolutely no mention of data to any significant degree. And, as far as large amounts of data go, that material was completely non-existent.
This article should have been titled "How to implement the ActiveX List View Control". It is a shame that Andrew MacNeill already did that a year ago in his column...< g >. Again, it would appear that we have some recycled material here in a slightly different format. In the beginning of the article, Dave mentions an application he worked on in which he implemented the control. That is the material I would be interested. Like other billed aspects of the piece, that too was non-existent.
Overall, not a bad article. Just not billed as advertised....
Is this how the editorial disciplines - both (copy and technical) have progressed at FPA? How do glaring mistakes like these get through???
-- John Petersen
Hey, John. Thanks for posting this. I thought I was losing my mind trying to reconcile the cover page and title with the content of the article. Thought the postman had swiped a few pages :>. -- Randy Pearson
Hi Randy... No problem. I thought I was losing my mind too... Actually, if you ask some folks here, they might agree..< bg >..
I was looking for info on scaling Fox data, and it was nowhere to be found. A pretty bad gaffe if you ask me. I wrote FPA about this, and as I suspected, they have not written me back. How you screw up something like this is beyond me.
I would love to know who tech edited the article. If you want an article on how to use the List View, it is not bad. That said, Andrew MacNeill covered that last September. That goes to my assertion that much of what FPA writes is recycled material. In any case, the person who teched the article should have taken heed in the article title - "Using ActiveX Controls to build Robust Applications." If it were me teching the article, It would have received the big smack down on two levels:
1. The material was already covered 11 months earlier..
2. Nowhere is the issue of robustness addressed.
Folks use the word Robust too liberally. Robust has a very definite meaning. And, if you are going to make that as your thesis, you damn well better provide some direct support for that thesis...
-- John Petersen
Category Article Reviews
( Topic last updated: 2000.07.25 09:24:15 AM )