<snip>
>>Another reason is to notify a user that a record they are about to update has
>>already had its original value changed by another user. That user can be
>>notified of the new value and given a chance to abort their change or go ahead
>>and overwrite the other user's change.
>
>This seems a very valuable reason to do the checking. I always use pessimistic buffering, so I don't have the problem, but the solution you propose is nicer, and I will definitely try it out !

Wait a minute, Pascal. You're using pessimistic buffering but you're not having a problem with determining changes made by another user? What are you doing that I'm not? My problem arises when User1 is viewing a record, User2 then makes and saves a change to the same record, User1 then decides to edit the record, but his form is still showing the record as it was before User2 saved his change. How can you trap for this?

Hope you have some suggestions. I've tried everything I can think of (and some pretty kludgy stuff).

Bonnie