>>I agree, and to me, this is one point where RVs have at least one advantage: >>when I add a field to a backend table, If I am using RVs to update that >>table, I only have to update the view definition. If I am using SPs, I have >>to update at least one and probably two or three SPs to reflect the change, >>as well as change the code in the data access class that builds the parameter >>list, and recompile the object. How is that more manageable?

I would much rather change a little SP code than deal that silly View designer. As for the data access classes, mine always know how to generate their own parms and what SP to call and what to do if an error occurs. The only thing that really changes in my framework are the validation methods in the cursor subclasses.

Charlie