>Well 'dummy' if you want to call it that. But yes, you would set up a database that would only contain your Remote Views and the connection to your MySQL database.

I seem to get a problem with the View Designer where it doesn't retrieve a field definition correctly now and then. This requires a "manual" modification of the rogue field. Some of the remote views would eventually be deleted and re-created programmatically which would then require a program to check that all the field definitions have been retrieved correctly.

>BTW: I can't see why things would work with SPT and not remote views. All remote views are is a 'Simplified' SPT, where you let VFP do alot of the SQL work for you!
>

It seems that I would need two views for each MySQL table. One for updating any of the fields except any "key" fields (SQL UPDATE) and one where "key" fields are updateable (SQL DELETE/INSERT).

The bottom line is yes, I agree that remote views seem to be a much better alternative to assembling large SQL UPDATE commands. The only drawback is the "bug" where field definitions are not retrieved correctly.