AFAIK, a major application I wrote uses explicit record locking in exactly one place - perhaps I could replace that, too.
>
>The basic idea - of not using rlock() - is to use optimistic buffering, and let VFP do the record locking automatically.
>
>In this case, records are only locked briefly, when the user saves changes to the record, with a save button (command TableUpdate()).
>
>If the user decides he doesn't need to save, there is no record locking at all.

I don't bother with buffering because, by the time I'm attempting to make any changes to the table, the user has already commited to saving them. The record is only locked for the GATHER from my BO. But since VFP will lock it for me when I do the gather, I'm wondering if the RLOCK actually serves any purpose?

Thanks,

Michelle