We are about to embark on a project to convert our FP for Win 2.6a application to VFP. We have already re-written it once and have a VFP/SQL Server version. However, it seems there is a market that still wants (is happy with) a .DBF based version.
We just can't go anywhere with the old 16 bit app. However, the features are there, and we still have many clients on it running a mission critical task.
So, we would like to be able to do it so that we can do small chuncks at a time. The plan is to do no database changes, the db design is sound and the system has a data dictionary, allbeit home grown.
Would like to here from people who have 'BTDT'
The issues to be aware of to allow the VFP version to run simultaneously against the same data set (free tables) as the 2.6 app?
1. Any command that writes the schema of the table...
2. Ok, I am running the 2.6 source in VFP 8.0 and the screen sets don't seem to work. Has anyone tackled this problem? Thanks.
3. ... whatelse
Don't even know what categories to put this in?
We are in the same boat here. As long as we maintain the data structures using FP 2.6, tying VFP apps to the data is no problem. We even have FP apps manipulating data in VFP and SQL using VFP exe's to bridge the gap. Nasty but functional in a pinch.
I've seen quite a number of systems over the years that do exactly this: hybrid 2.6 and VFP code, often .SPR code, running under VFP. It's never pretty, and it's not really the way I personaly prefer to live, but it works remarkably well and you'd probably be *very* surprised how many major deployments do exactly this to some degree. It's a very "safe" route, and a great majority of the Fox millionaires or near-millionaires I've met over the years have done this. -- Steven Black
Steve, yes, it was an approach that we considered. However, our 2.6 app has a very complex foundation read that almost is an event handler. It allows you to switch from form to form and updates all open forms when the parent 'form' (which looks like a toolbar) is changed or when the button bar (another form that looks like a tool bar) is used. The design is awesome and revolutionary but doesn't allow us just to run the .SPR's in VFP. It's not for lack of trying either. -- Bob Archer
Not sure it would help in your particular case Bob, but anyone looking at a 2.6 to VFP conversion would do very well to get in contact with DavidBower (firstname.lastname@example.org). His firm has built and used a fairly impressive converter. During his recent presentation at OzFox 2003 (http://ozfox.com.au/speakers.htm), he announced that he was releasing the converter to the Fox community. - ?lc
Steve, thanks for the push. I thought I had tried this, but I must have confused it with a 'functional' (not) conversion. I was able to get the 2.6 source (SPRs and PRGs) running in VFP with a few small changes where function names conflicted with VFP functions. As you said, it's not pretty but it may be the interium step I need to use the COMponent we are moving to for tax calculations.
lc - I contaced David and he sent me his stuff. It looks like it will be very usefull once we have the base clases written and are ready to convert the screens to real VFP forms.-- Bob Archer
See (down the bottom of) FoxPro 2 To VFP Consultants for up-to-date details of how to access both the presentation and an updated conversion tool from DavidBower. In a nutshell, it takes the results of a 'functional' (not) conversion and leaves you with a 'functional' system which you can continue to develop in VFP. -- Rob Spencer
Category Fox Versions
( Topic last updated: 2004.08.24 10:09:34 AM )