>>>Joe-
>>>
>>>>I buffered them both for a reason. It allows me to insert,edit,delete records in the view, then tableupdate. This updates the base table but the changes still are not committed. Then if depending on that I want... I can tableupdate (or tablerevert) the base table and everything is saved or it returns to it's initial state.
>>>
>>>In that case you'll need to TableUpdate the table, too. I still don't see why you need to double buffer. Generally I wouldn't table update the view until I knew I really wanted to tableupdate. But there's an exception to every rule. It's just operating outside the normal channels.
>>
>>I guess you probably right. I'd have to look at it all again. I think
>>it stems from the fact the the base table is needed buffered elsewhere in
>>the program where the view isn't used. I open up my tables and views in
>>a prg at the start of my app. I suppose I could open and close them at various times with buffering or not.
>
>Hm. That's a tricky situation. Could you use a private datasession in this case?

Possibly... but for now I just removed the table index that was causing
the tableupdate to fail.