I realize that I do have to update more than one table. So I can use
table buffering but can I still use the SQL update, insert and delete
commands.  It says the following in the help file on cursorsetprop
"Note   Buffering is not applied to tables that are opened implicitly,
for example, using SQL INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE commands." 
This sounds like those commands ignore table buffering. So then I would
have to use append , replace and delete for table buffering to work? 

Thanks
Judith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Cushing
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: table buffering
> 
> Judith Barer wrote:
> > I have developed a VFP 8.0 app with table buffering used in most of 
> > the forms.  This all works fine.  I use transactions and 
> tableupdate 
> > and it's working fine.  I have to write a program that will 
> read in an 
> > xml file every day and update appropriate records in a 
> table that is 
> > used in the main app.  Do I have to use buffering in this program 
> > because the table may be in  open in the main app or can I just use 
> > SQL insert, update and delete commands without buffering?
> >  
> >   
> Hi Judith,
> 
> You can use either.  Make sure exclusive of OFF in this 
> program as the tables will be opened elsewhere.  Doing 
> updates like this on a single table I would just use SQL 
> insert for new records or RLOCK()/update for updating 
> existing records.  If you are updating more than one table I 
> would use buffering.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to