>>I'm sure you'll agree there is something counter-intuitive about asking the user to save at the creation of the 2nd child (Assuming the sequence of events I started with). It would seem random to the user. For now, I am going to see if I can come up with a presentable way to do that. Thanks much for the feedback
>
>I agree with you, and I agree with what Bob Archer said in another twist of this thread. Instead of forcing the save where I said to (creation of the second child) it would make more sense to the user (and to me now that Bob mentioned it) to force saving any parent before adding any children for it. (That includes saving 'children' before adding 'grandchildren'.)
>
>Interesting discussion, again, I'm glad we're having it.
>
>Cheers,

Just a WAG: why not do an implicit TableUpdate() on all the views, and wrap it all in a transaction - so if the user changes his mind and abandons the whole three-generation-dynasty stuff, simply rollback. Somebody already mentioned that, but now I've had the whole thing re-run through my head, and the more I re-run it, the more sense it makes. Gee, it fits too good, I must have missed something important. Yes - will requerying the grandchild view lose the records if they're saved and wrapped in a transaction? I think not, but then, I may be wrong. I don't have the time to build an example.