>>I use default DS only, and I have no problems with record pointer coordinations. My forms are not dependent on pointer moving, i.e. they are completely unbound from data.
>>Basically, private DS is based itself on USE ... AGAIN, and it looks pretty much FOX2x too. Yes, it's convenient, because it's available, but I would not consider it as important OO feature.
>
>Ed,
>
>I have to disagree. I find that private data sessions are one of the major improvements in VFP over FP 2.x. I wrote the state saving and restoring code in 2.x to allow multiple instances of the same form and believe me setting the data session to private is a great improvement.

As I mentioned to Erik, I have no need in saving/restoring code. Yes, in FPW it was painful to coordinate multiple forms, but now it's not so.


>Also, if one chooses not to use private data sessions and there are two forms open and buffering is set to row, then table updates can occur totally out of the control of one form when the other moves a record pointer.

But the point is that I don't use buffering :-).


>In fact, the only time I see a default data session having any value is when I have a child form that must manipulate its parent's data directly.

I would say, it depends. It's very probable that in your framework it does not make value. Personally, I like it, it greatly simplifies for me SET PATH issues (actually I don't have to use it at all), maintenance form (PACK/REINDEX) closes/opens data handily (two methods of the only DE I have), many other minor things. Again, it's really developer-specific issue. I would not make any general claims here.