Hiya Ken --

On pessimistic buffering:

>
>I bet you a buck none of the programmers at my place could find a reason good enough, given any other option I could dream up (and I'm quite a dreamer :0), to get my OK (me boss man numero uno honcho senior designer) to put pessimistic locks into their code.
>

I can't find a good reason for pessimistic table buffering, but what about row buffering? How often can a good business case be made for two users editing the same record at the same time? Very few, therefore, if a user goes to change data and the application tests for a lock and can't get it then there is a good reason for it: In use by another. You can't trap this proactively with optimistic buffering. Now, with views, of course, all this goes out the door and I agree 100% with you.