>
OK, I'll bite ... Why is it "far better to have your underlying columns match the order of the grid columns".
>

So you don't have to get into the explicit'ness of specifying columnsources. I brought it up because John Ryan seems to think that RV's have a distinct advantage @ being swappable with respect to grids. I have done this countless times with SPT. One of the things that makes it easier is if the underlying table columns match the grid columns. Anything else, and I think you are creating more work for yourself.


>(Having implemented "hundreds" of grids, which included: multiple sources per grid, multiple grids per source, related grids, multi-select grids, incremental grids, "calculated" columns, etc. .... and never having gotten hung up about "underlying column order").
>

Don't get me wrong, if somebody knows how to handle the situation, one won't get hung up. My only point is that more work is created in managing the situiaton. That's all..

>
For that matter, one could argue that the "column order" of the SQL Select should "match" the column order(s) of the base table(s) ... although I wouldn't.
<

One could argue that. However, it would be a very weak argument.