That explanation doesn't fully answer why it might be bad to change the VCX while an application is using the same class from a cached memory structure. I hazard a guess that it's because there may be times when the executing VFP app. may well need to re-load the class. Say, for instance, if memory got low or someone issued a SYS(1104).


>The VCX is locked to protected against changes in a class when instances of that class exist. The way this all works and it's results/behavior is very unlikely to change, but I'm not sure if you are just trying to understand how the internals work better or if you are wanting some alternative behavior.
>
>Ken
>
>>My understanding of what actually goes on when something is cached is limited. I thought that a copy of what is cached was placed in memory. If that is true then a cached VCX table would not need to stay open because a copy of the table is in memory. But when you are referring to a "special way", do you mean that the table needs to remain open as part of the caching?