>>>>>I meant, that you need in private DS, only if you use buffering. If you don't use buffering, then you don't need in private DS.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I don't see that at all. I would use private data sessions whether or not I am using buffering, whether or not the application is single or multi user, whether or not it is in English or Chinese. Private data sessions give us a major leg up on creating event driven applications and not to worry about things like record pointers between forms.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, I don't understand the link here.
>>>
>>>Menachem,
>>>
>>>I don't understand Ed's point either. I had an experience recently that's a good example of why you might always want use private datasessions. I inherited an application that used the default DS. When I asked about it I was told that the client really didn't want an event driven interface becuase the users would just be likely to get confused (I actually think that's a reasonable design decision for some applications). Of course, several months later I was asked, "How hard would it be to allow users to open a new contact without closing the contact they're working on?" Well, with tons of code assuming the default datasession, pretty damn hard!
>>
>>Josh, I try my best to answer. Unbound interface allows to use default data session and event-driving interface. Actually, I try to separate data from interface as much as possible.
>
>Unbound interface......interesting concept. Could you expand a little on how you're doing the data manipulation?
>
>Thanks,
>Steve

See my reply to Bruce.