Thanks again.

What does PMS (in your signature) stand for?

>Hi,
>
>If it's a one-to-one relationship you're talking about, then simply resort to tight coupling between the objects involved. I think that's the simplest approach in your situation.
>
>Bindevents was introduced in vfp8. With the exception of a change in the way sql statements are handled (a problem you may address with a simple SET command), I think that all the vfp6 code will still run unchanged in vfp8, but you should test this to make sure anyway if you're considering upgrading.
>
>have fun!
>
>Alex
>
>
>>Thanks. Well, while this is an interesting pattern, I think it applies only loosely to my particular needs in this case. The dependency is not 1-to-many, but 1-to-1, and I don't mind if the Container needs to know exactly which contained objects need to change.
>>
>>In what version was "BindEvents" introduced? My client - for this particular project - wants to continue with VFP6 (note: he does a lot of the programming; I help out). Therefore, I think that isn't an option right now.
>>
>>>Hola Hilmar,
>>>
>>>You might want to look a bit at design patterns; specifically the observer pattern (http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~ObserverPattern~SoftwareEng).
>>>
>>>The assign method seems to be a good place to start as it's very similar to an event.
>>>
>>>What I would do is create a mechanism with which the contained objects "register" themselves with the container (maybe have their init events tell the parent about their presence - this.parent.RegisterContainedObject(this)).
>>>
>>>Then in the assign method of the properties in the parent, a loop to go through all the registered contained objects and call them Hey_YourParentHasChanged() method, which will have them look at key properties in the parent object.
>>>
>>>Another approach you might want to explore is to do this somehow through bindevents() because, what you're really doing here is raising an event and having all or some of the contained objects respond to it.
>>>
>>>have fun!
>>>
>>>Alex