I use views quite a lot and that's my understanding as well. That's why I questioned the disagreement with the statement 'Don't buffer the tables when using views'.

>I won't speak to what Craig meant, but I believe the recommended course of action is to: 1) buffer the view cursor; 2) do not explicity open, which therefore makes buffering the table irrelevant; 3) when the view is TABLEUPDATEd, the underlying table will be updated at that time.
>
>That's just my understanding.
>
>>>>Don't buffer the tables when using views, since views are really just a buffer for your tables. If you buffer your tables, you will need to issue 2 TableUpdate(), one for the view (first) and one for the tables (second). It's best just to open the table unbuffered and to issue a single TableUpdate() in the view.
>>>>
>>>>HTH
>>>>
>>>
>>>I strongly disagree. Use table buffering and things will work well.
>>
>>Why would you buffer an underlying table when using a view?