PMFJI, I think I see what's happening here...

Remember, cListObjEditForm is meant to be used with other framework objects and has underlying PEMs (oCallingFormListObj, for example) to help it do its job. You can get the form to behave differently, like you are now, you just have to make sure the correct parameters are passed, especially the object references...

Keeping that in mind, it appears you have a reference to the 1st modal form's BizObj (the one with the list of publishers) being passed to the 2nd modal form as the one to update (the one stored as oCallingFormListObj). At least that would explain why the first one is being updated with the new record while the second one is not. If that's the case, that should take care of 1a and 1b.

1c can be explained as follows... Framework code handles the "pre-fetching" of the NewID() value into your views. Because you issued a direct FoxPro "APPEND BLANK", and not a framework "BizObj.New()" you bypassed that code. Therefore, NewID() will not fire until TABLEUPDATE() occurs.

Sorry... can't help you with 2a without knowing where in the code you get that message.

Hope that helps,
---J

>Hello Rex
>I have the forms working now, however there are a couple of strange things I have noticed:
>
>1a. The first cListObjEditForm form1 (that is used to call the second cListObjEditForm form2) automatically appended a record to its bizobj and I had to change the luiEnableNewRecord to .F. to disable this feature.
>
>1b. However the second cListObjEditForm2 does not append a record to its bizobj automatically, even when luiEnableNewRecord is set to .T.
>
>1c. I have to put an "append blank" statement into the form "activate event". This works but it only runs "newid()" when the record is saved. ( I have a wait window nowait statement in newid) I cannot understand why this happens. The unique id is thus not available in the form but is available as the record is saved.
>
>2a. I have received a couple of "Source is out of date" errors which is also strange as the code is not compiled before testing.
>
>Your remarks on these points would be appretiated.
>
>TIA
>Allan