Hi Robert,

I use simillar aldough generic saving solution.
NEVER had any problem. Nor corruption.
VFP is very good when buffering 5 wrapped in transaction band is used.

What I do is store all cursors (table) names in an array, all of them are set to buffering 5, and then at the moment of saving all 'dirty' buffers are
actually saved to underlying table with tableupdate(), keeping actual locking time in some miliseconds range. But I don't use transaction loop to revert changes if user decide not to save. That is done by issuing multiple tablerevert() commands on all 'dirty' buffers (cursors).
Only time transaction mechanisam is used to actually revert all changes, is
when there is collision between multiple users (err 1585) , or some rule is violated (like uniqueness of the key etc) while some other table records are already saved before the one that flashed error.
That is only time when transaction band kicks inn to save integrity
of the data. Chk VFP dev manual for buffering/transaction examples, this is from where I picked up and implemented scenario which I am using all these years.

As I said, never gave me any problem. No corruption not soever.
Very stable and reliable.

VFP is great :)



>I would like to ask opinion from the VFP users community, how good is VFP? I constantly have problems, while I just using standard code.
>
>All my code are like this:
>
>

>BEGIN TRANSACTION
>
>SELECT tableA           && all tables with buffermode=5
>   REPLACE ...
>INSERT INTO tableB ...
>
>ltableUpdate=.n.
>SELECT tableA
>IF TABLEUPDATE(.t.)
>   SELECT tableB
>      IF TABLEUPDATE(.t.)
>	ltableUpdate=.y.
>      ENDIF
>ENDIF
>
>IF ltableUpdate
>    END TRANSACTION
>ELSE
>    ROLLBACK
>ENDIF
>

>
>The app only good in stand alone, if running in multi-user environment, I constantly got 'File is in use by another user', rollback, missing records.
>
>I'm using VFP9, dbf, XP. no power failure problem.
>
>I think I have lost confidence in VFP
>
>any comment please.