Edward, I really don't know exactly what you are doing, so I can say waht you are loosing (I also didn't follow this thread from the beginning so soryr about that - I have troubles connecting to UT from behind the firewall here , and I just switched to Email interface) Also I am sure that you are capable enough to solve what ever issues that arise from nto usign Private Datasession but that is besides the point The point is that using PD saves me a lot of lines of code and takes care for me for a lot of issues for exampleI used to have a lot of code that SET and reSET values , I don't do that anymore - I just call a SetENV() method that does all the SETs and don;t care about other forms and there is a lot more other code that I just not need to write I guess you can add a property to each class where you would store the "control source" and thus automate the whole process of manually binding the controls when you want etc. but why duplicate something that's already implemented VFP gives me simple tools to solve the problems that direct binding gave us in the FP2.x days I guess the "more power" here translate to simplicity fo code and thus easier readability and maintanance Arnon > >Arnon, what power I lack using this approach? (surely i use buffered views). > >>Basically ,it is working the same way you would in FP2.x >>by using variables (or in VFP you can use properties) to hold the values of >>the current record etc. >>IMHO VFP gives you several better options that gives you much more power >>like private datasessions,buffering and views >> >>Arnon >> >> >>> >>>>My preference is unbound interface. >>> >>>Hi Edward - I've forgotten, what exactly do you mean by this?