It is NOT a filtered cursor rather it is a code CREATEd CURSOR that has its values populated from the web form then validated prior to adding all 15 rows of the cursor to the VFP table.

>Tom,
>
>Is it possible that your "cursor" is NOT really a cursor, but rather a 'filtered result set'?
>
>If so, and you are using VFP6 or better, then the NOFILTER clause should fix that.
>
>If not, what records are you losing - all of them or just the last few or???
>
>good luck
>
>
> >I have an application that is a MTDLL on a web site that saves 15 rows of data from a cursor to a permanent DBF table using the following commands:
>>
>>

>>SELECT table
>>APPEND FROM DBF('cursorname')
>>

>>
>>I suppose the code would be better written as follows:
>>
>>

>>SELECT table
>>IF FLOCK()
>>  APPEND FROM DBF('cursorname')
>>ENDIF
>>UNLOCK
>>FLUSH
>>

>>
>>The other alternative is to loop thru the cursor and do INSERT INTOs as such:
>>
>>

>>SELECT cursor
>>SCAN
>>  SCATTER MEMVAR
>>  INSERT INTO table FROM MEMVAR
>>ENDSCAN
>>

>>
>>I suppose the erradict data loss may be part of a contention issue but I find that somewhat unlikely (but possible) as this is not a heavily trafficed site.
>>
>>Anyone ever had a similar issue and what is the best solution - APPEND FROM or INSERT INTO?