> I like the way you have described the problem. Both views will get > requeried if you requery one of them. > Simplest suggestion is to have two different views.
Thanks for the compliemnt...I was so frustrated when I posted that I am surprised I was able to be lucid at all... *grin*
I suppose I could have two views, but it was going to be so elegant...the reason using the same view was so perfect is because I am copying the exact same types of records from one staff ID to another. I had no idea that a view opened into two different work areas would still insist on using the same buffer and all (is that what is going on?) Does anyone else find this design a bit braindead? I mean, a view is basically just packaged SQL with some extra rules on how to do updates, so why must two instances of the view share the link and buffer? That would be like two instances of a class writing to the same memory...Thank God that is not the way it works. *smile*.
Again, the second view is a good idea, and it would actually be OK, since I tihnk this is the only copying we may be doing (though if we wanted to more it would be a _royal_ pain to double up all my views...)
Thanks for the response...anyone else have any thoughts?
