"offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166716904.591083.312750@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>I would like to create a Table Adapter which can work with multiple
> tables.  Ideally it would still work with the configuration wizard.  I
> have tried to add a query which joins 2 tables, but then it does not
> create the insert, update and delete methods.
>
> Is there a way to do this?  Can I do it if I create a View?
>
> Brennan Stehling
> http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
>

> This question has been asked a dozen dozen times. That's why I wrote an
> entire chapter in my book about the answer. Basically, a TableAdapter is
> designed to handle a rowset. If it's returned from a SELECT against a single
> table the CommandBuilder (behind the scenes) can generate simple CRUD
> commands. When you execute a JOIN, the simplistic CommandBuilder and
> TableAdapter cannot figure out how to build correlated UPDATE or other
> action commands. As I said, I wrote a whole chapter on this to walk you
> through the process of working with more complex products.
>
> hth
>
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> __________________________________
> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166716904.591083.312750@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >I would like to create a Table Adapter which can work with multiple
> > tables.  Ideally it would still work with the configuration wizard.  I
> > have tried to add a query which joins 2 tables, but then it does not
> > create the insert, update and delete methods.
> >
> > Is there a way to do this?  Can I do it if I create a View?
> >
> > Brennan Stehling
> > http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
> >

"offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166733532.319407.315000@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> Which chapter and section cover this?  I have the book right now.
>
> Brennan Stehling
> http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
>
> William (Bill) Vaughn wrote:
>> This question has been asked a dozen dozen times. That's why I wrote an
>> entire chapter in my book about the answer. Basically, a TableAdapter is
>> designed to handle a rowset. If it's returned from a SELECT against a
>> single
>> table the CommandBuilder (behind the scenes) can generate simple CRUD
>> commands. When you execute a JOIN, the simplistic CommandBuilder and
>> TableAdapter cannot figure out how to build correlated UPDATE or other
>> action commands. As I said, I wrote a whole chapter on this to walk you
>> through the process of working with more complex products.
>>
>> hth
>>
>> --
>> ____________________________________
>> William (Bill) Vaughn
>> Author, Mentor, Consultant
>> Microsoft MVP
>> INETA Speaker
>> www.betav.com/blog/billva
>> www.betav.com
>> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> __________________________________
>> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
>> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
>> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166716904.591083.312750@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >I would like to create a Table Adapter which can work with multiple
>> > tables.  Ideally it would still work with the configuration wizard.  I
>> > have tried to add a query which joins 2 tables, but then it does not
>> > create the insert, update and delete methods.
>> >
>> > Is there a way to do this?  Can I do it if I create a View?
>> >
>> > Brennan Stehling
>> > http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
>> >
>

> Chapter 6. Yes, it's a big chapter, but the mechanics are there. In several
> other chapters (esp. Chapter 8) I show how to use ADO.NET to build and
> manage the rowsets, chapter 12 discusses updates and concurrency.
>
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> __________________________________
> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166733532.319407.315000@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> > Which chapter and section cover this?  I have the book right now.
> >
> > Brennan Stehling
> > http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
> >
> > William (Bill) Vaughn wrote:
> >> This question has been asked a dozen dozen times. That's why I wrote an
> >> entire chapter in my book about the answer. Basically, a TableAdapter is
> >> designed to handle a rowset. If it's returned from a SELECT against a
> >> single
> >> table the CommandBuilder (behind the scenes) can generate simple CRUD
> >> commands. When you execute a JOIN, the simplistic CommandBuilder and
> >> TableAdapter cannot figure out how to build correlated UPDATE or other
> >> action commands. As I said, I wrote a whole chapter on this to walk you
> >> through the process of working with more complex products.
> >>
> >> hth
> >>
> >> --
> >> ____________________________________
> >> William (Bill) Vaughn
> >> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> >> Microsoft MVP
> >> INETA Speaker
> >> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> >> www.betav.com
> >> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >> rights.
> >> __________________________________
> >> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> >> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> >> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1166716904.591083.312750@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >> >I would like to create a Table Adapter which can work with multiple
> >> > tables.  Ideally it would still work with the configuration wizard.  I
> >> > have tried to add a query which joins 2 tables, but then it does not
> >> > create the insert, update and delete methods.
> >> >
> >> > Is there a way to do this?  Can I do it if I create a View?
> >> >
> >> > Brennan Stehling
> >> > http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
> >> >
> >

"offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166743235.644057.315690@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Bill,
>
> What I did yesterday start with a TableAdapter  with single table.  I
> had it generate the stored procedures.  I then updated it to join 2
> tables for the query which brought in more fields.  I then adjusted the
> Insert, Update and Delete routines accordingly.  The output parameters
> work just fine and I can bind databound controls to the
> ObjectDataSource which uses this new TableAdapter.
>
> It all works, but what I want to know is if a View or another approach
> is supported by the configuration wizard.  As best as I can tell the
> approach I took is the only way to go.
>
> As I browsed your chapter (actually PDF download from Safari Books) I
> only saw that multiple tables was just referenced as a limitation but I
> did not see an example to make it work later in the chapter.
>
> What I did see is some examples with the DataRelation.  Is that what
> you suggest as the way to go?
>
> Brennan
>
> William (Bill) Vaughn wrote:
>> Chapter 6. Yes, it's a big chapter, but the mechanics are there. In
>> several
>> other chapters (esp. Chapter 8) I show how to use ADO.NET to build and
>> manage the rowsets, chapter 12 discusses updates and concurrency.
>>
>> --
>> ____________________________________
>> William (Bill) Vaughn
>> Author, Mentor, Consultant
>> Microsoft MVP
>> INETA Speaker
>> www.betav.com/blog/billva
>> www.betav.com
>> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> __________________________________
>> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
>> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
>> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166733532.319407.315000@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>> > Which chapter and section cover this?  I have the book right now.
>> >
>> > Brennan Stehling
>> > http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
>> >
>> > William (Bill) Vaughn wrote:
>> >> This question has been asked a dozen dozen times. That's why I wrote
>> >> an
>> >> entire chapter in my book about the answer. Basically, a TableAdapter
>> >> is
>> >> designed to handle a rowset. If it's returned from a SELECT against a
>> >> single
>> >> table the CommandBuilder (behind the scenes) can generate simple CRUD
>> >> commands. When you execute a JOIN, the simplistic CommandBuilder and
>> >> TableAdapter cannot figure out how to build correlated UPDATE or other
>> >> action commands. As I said, I wrote a whole chapter on this to walk
>> >> you
>> >> through the process of working with more complex products.
>> >>
>> >> hth
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ____________________________________
>> >> William (Bill) Vaughn
>> >> Author, Mentor, Consultant
>> >> Microsoft MVP
>> >> INETA Speaker
>> >> www.betav.com/blog/billva
>> >> www.betav.com
>> >> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> >> rights.
>> >> __________________________________
>> >> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest
>> >> book:
>> >> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
>> >> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
>> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1166716904.591083.312750@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >I would like to create a Table Adapter which can work with multiple
>> >> > tables.  Ideally it would still work with the configuration wizard.
>> >> > I
>> >> > have tried to add a query which joins 2 tables, but then it does not
>> >> > create the insert, update and delete methods.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there a way to do this?  Can I do it if I create a View?
>> >> >
>> >> > Brennan Stehling
>> >> > http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
>> >> >
>> >
>

>

> Offwhite,
>
> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update command for each
> table.
>
> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
>
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
>
> In common is the routine,
> first the added parent rows
> secondly the added child rows
> thirth update the parent rows
> fourth update the child rows
> fifth delete the child rows
> sixt delete the parent rows
>
> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are using copies.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Cor
>
> >

"offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1167150938.595059.238290@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Cor,
>
> Why the add, update and delete?
>
> What I have done is create the Select, Insert, Update and Delete
> methods on the TableAdapter with input parameters against a stored
> procedure which works with the multiple tables.  They still appear as a
> single table to the TableAdapter, but I handle all of the details like
> child tables with foreign key references.
>
> It is working quite well, but it would be great if the wizard would be
> smart enough to realize that I am joining tables in the Select method
> and then generate the Insert, Update and Delete methods.  Perhaps that
> level of complexity is something the wizard is not meant to attempt.
>
> At least I can back them with my own sprocs.
>
> Brennan
>
> Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> Offwhite,
>>
>> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update command for
>> each
>> table.
>>
>> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
>>
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
>>
>> In common is the routine,
>> first the added parent rows
>> secondly the added child rows
>> thirth update the parent rows
>> fourth update the child rows
>> fifth delete the child rows
>> sixt delete the parent rows
>>
>> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are using copies.
>>
>> I hope this helps,
>>
>> Cor
>>
>> >
>

> Brennan,
>
> The (Microsoft) wizards are not able to do what you ask, we don't know what
> the future will bring, but I think that all real .Net developers would need
> this more than every other thing.
>
> Cor
>
> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> news:1167150938.595059.238290@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Cor,
> >
> > Why the add, update and delete?
> >
> > What I have done is create the Select, Insert, Update and Delete
> > methods on the TableAdapter with input parameters against a stored
> > procedure which works with the multiple tables.  They still appear as a
> > single table to the TableAdapter, but I handle all of the details like
> > child tables with foreign key references.
> >
> > It is working quite well, but it would be great if the wizard would be
> > smart enough to realize that I am joining tables in the Select method
> > and then generate the Insert, Update and Delete methods.  Perhaps that
> > level of complexity is something the wizard is not meant to attempt.
> >
> > At least I can back them with my own sprocs.
> >
> > Brennan
> >
> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
> >> Offwhite,
> >>
> >> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update command for
> >> each
> >> table.
> >>
> >> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
> >>
> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
> >>
> >> In common is the routine,
> >> first the added parent rows
> >> secondly the added child rows
> >> thirth update the parent rows
> >> fourth update the child rows
> >> fifth delete the child rows
> >> sixt delete the parent rows
> >>
> >> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are using copies.
> >>
> >> I hope this helps,
> >>
> >> Cor
> >>
> >> >
> >

"offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167188569.799593.53520@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Cor,
>
> I think DLinq will make these sorts of concerns go away, hopefully.  I
> have yet to dig into that with this sort of scenario.  However, that
> does appear it will encourage developers to glue the BLL directly to
> the database server  instead of planning and implementing a DAL.  So it
> could introduce as many problems as it solves.  I hope this concern is
> being addressed.
>
> Brennan
>
> Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> Brennan,
>>
>> The (Microsoft) wizards are not able to do what you ask, we don't know
>> what
>> the future will bring, but I think that all real .Net developers would
>> need
>> this more than every other thing.
>>
>> Cor
>>
>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>> news:1167150938.595059.238290@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Cor,
>> >
>> > Why the add, update and delete?
>> >
>> > What I have done is create the Select, Insert, Update and Delete
>> > methods on the TableAdapter with input parameters against a stored
>> > procedure which works with the multiple tables.  They still appear as a
>> > single table to the TableAdapter, but I handle all of the details like
>> > child tables with foreign key references.
>> >
>> > It is working quite well, but it would be great if the wizard would be
>> > smart enough to realize that I am joining tables in the Select method
>> > and then generate the Insert, Update and Delete methods.  Perhaps that
>> > level of complexity is something the wizard is not meant to attempt.
>> >
>> > At least I can back them with my own sprocs.
>> >
>> > Brennan
>> >
>> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> >> Offwhite,
>> >>
>> >> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update command for
>> >> each
>> >> table.
>> >>
>> >> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
>> >>
>> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
>> >>
>> >> In common is the routine,
>> >> first the added parent rows
>> >> secondly the added child rows
>> >> thirth update the parent rows
>> >> fourth update the child rows
>> >> fifth delete the child rows
>> >> sixt delete the parent rows
>> >>
>> >> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are using copies.
>> >>
>> >> I hope this helps,
>> >>
>> >> Cor
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>

"William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveT***@nwlink.com> schreef in bericht
news:ekevJRjKHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> If you had read my books you would know that pessimistic locks make sense
> in some cases, but the discussion here has little to do with that
> approach. What I am suggesting is that the query strategy that requires
> 5-minute locking be reevaluated. ADO.NET is not JUST for disconnected data
> architectures. It can (and is) used for Connected architectures as well.
>
> --
> ____________________________________
> William (Bill) Vaughn
> Author, Mentor, Consultant
> Microsoft MVP
> INETA Speaker
> www.betav.com/blog/billva
> www.betav.com
> Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> __________________________________
> Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167188569.799593.53520@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Cor,
>>
>> I think DLinq will make these sorts of concerns go away, hopefully.  I
>> have yet to dig into that with this sort of scenario.  However, that
>> does appear it will encourage developers to glue the BLL directly to
>> the database server  instead of planning and implementing a DAL.  So it
>> could introduce as many problems as it solves.  I hope this concern is
>> being addressed.
>>
>> Brennan
>>
>> Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>>> Brennan,
>>>
>>> The (Microsoft) wizards are not able to do what you ask, we don't know
>>> what
>>> the future will bring, but I think that all real .Net developers would
>>> need
>>> this more than every other thing.
>>>
>>> Cor
>>>
>>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>>> news:1167150938.595059.238290@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Cor,
>>> >
>>> > Why the add, update and delete?
>>> >
>>> > What I have done is create the Select, Insert, Update and Delete
>>> > methods on the TableAdapter with input parameters against a stored
>>> > procedure which works with the multiple tables.  They still appear as
>>> > a
>>> > single table to the TableAdapter, but I handle all of the details like
>>> > child tables with foreign key references.
>>> >
>>> > It is working quite well, but it would be great if the wizard would be
>>> > smart enough to realize that I am joining tables in the Select method
>>> > and then generate the Insert, Update and Delete methods.  Perhaps that
>>> > level of complexity is something the wizard is not meant to attempt.
>>> >
>>> > At least I can back them with my own sprocs.
>>> >
>>> > Brennan
>>> >
>>> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>>> >> Offwhite,
>>> >>
>>> >> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update command
>>> >> for
>>> >> each
>>> >> table.
>>> >>
>>> >> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
>>> >>
>>> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
>>> >>
>>> >> In common is the routine,
>>> >> first the added parent rows
>>> >> secondly the added child rows
>>> >> thirth update the parent rows
>>> >> fourth update the child rows
>>> >> fifth delete the child rows
>>> >> sixt delete the parent rows
>>> >>
>>> >> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are using copies.
>>> >>
>>> >> I hope this helps,
>>> >>
>>> >> Cor
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>
>
>

> Bill,
>
> Wrong place I mail you by email my comment.
>
> Cor
>
> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveT***@nwlink.com> schreef in bericht
> news:ekevJRjKHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > If you had read my books you would know that pessimistic locks make sense
> > in some cases, but the discussion here has little to do with that
> > approach. What I am suggesting is that the query strategy that requires
> > 5-minute locking be reevaluated. ADO.NET is not JUST for disconnected data
> > architectures. It can (and is) used for Connected architectures as well.
> >
> > --
> > ____________________________________
> > William (Bill) Vaughn
> > Author, Mentor, Consultant
> > Microsoft MVP
> > INETA Speaker
> > www.betav.com/blog/billva
> > www.betav.com
> > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> > __________________________________
> > Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest book:
> > Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> > and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1167188569.799593.53520@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> Cor,
> >>
> >> I think DLinq will make these sorts of concerns go away, hopefully.  I
> >> have yet to dig into that with this sort of scenario.  However, that
> >> does appear it will encourage developers to glue the BLL directly to
> >> the database server  instead of planning and implementing a DAL.  So it
> >> could introduce as many problems as it solves.  I hope this concern is
> >> being addressed.
> >>
> >> Brennan
> >>
> >> Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
> >>> Brennan,
> >>>
> >>> The (Microsoft) wizards are not able to do what you ask, we don't know
> >>> what
> >>> the future will bring, but I think that all real .Net developers would
> >>> need
> >>> this more than every other thing.
> >>>
> >>> Cor
> >>>
> >>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> >>> news:1167150938.595059.238290@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>> > Cor,
> >>> >
> >>> > Why the add, update and delete?
> >>> >
> >>> > What I have done is create the Select, Insert, Update and Delete
> >>> > methods on the TableAdapter with input parameters against a stored
> >>> > procedure which works with the multiple tables.  They still appear as
> >>> > a
> >>> > single table to the TableAdapter, but I handle all of the details like
> >>> > child tables with foreign key references.
> >>> >
> >>> > It is working quite well, but it would be great if the wizard would be
> >>> > smart enough to realize that I am joining tables in the Select method
> >>> > and then generate the Insert, Update and Delete methods.  Perhaps that
> >>> > level of complexity is something the wizard is not meant to attempt.
> >>> >
> >>> > At least I can back them with my own sprocs.
> >>> >
> >>> > Brennan
> >>> >
> >>> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
> >>> >> Offwhite,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update command
> >>> >> for
> >>> >> each
> >>> >> table.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
> >>> >>
> >>> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
> >>> >>
> >>> >> In common is the routine,
> >>> >> first the added parent rows
> >>> >> secondly the added child rows
> >>> >> thirth update the parent rows
> >>> >> fourth update the child rows
> >>> >> fifth delete the child rows
> >>> >> sixt delete the parent rows
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are using copies.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I hope this helps,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Cor
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >
> >>
> >
> >

"offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167423570.397012.10310@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This thread has been entirely unhelpful.  The responses do not appear
> to relate directly to the problem I proposed and instead raise points
> which are not explained in relation to the original problem.
>
> Please, if you do respond to a question do so by making a point which
> is related to the original post and then explaining your point instead
> of relying on innuendo or references to a book most people reading the
> newsgroup do not have on hand.
>
> Brennan
>
> Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Wrong place I mail you by email my comment.
>>
>> Cor
>>
>> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveT***@nwlink.com> schreef in
>> bericht
>> news:ekevJRjKHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > If you had read my books you would know that pessimistic locks make
>> > sense
>> > in some cases, but the discussion here has little to do with that
>> > approach. What I am suggesting is that the query strategy that
>> > requires
>> > 5-minute locking be reevaluated. ADO.NET is not JUST for
>> > disconnected data
>> > architectures. It can (and is) used for Connected architectures as
>> > well.
>> >
>> > --
>> > ____________________________________
>> > William (Bill) Vaughn
>> > Author, Mentor, Consultant
>> > Microsoft MVP
>> > INETA Speaker
>> > www.betav.com/blog/billva
>> > www.betav.com
>> > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> > rights.
>> > __________________________________
>> > Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest
>> > book:
>> > Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
>> > and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1167188569.799593.53520@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Cor,
>> >>
>> >> I think DLinq will make these sorts of concerns go away,
>> >> hopefully.  I
>> >> have yet to dig into that with this sort of scenario.  However,
>> >> that
>> >> does appear it will encourage developers to glue the BLL directly
>> >> to
>> >> the database server  instead of planning and implementing a DAL.
>> >> So it
>> >> could introduce as many problems as it solves.  I hope this
>> >> concern is
>> >> being addressed.
>> >>
>> >> Brennan
>> >>
>> >> Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> >>> Brennan,
>> >>>
>> >>> The (Microsoft) wizards are not able to do what you ask, we don't
>> >>> know
>> >>> what
>> >>> the future will bring, but I think that all real .Net developers
>> >>> would
>> >>> need
>> >>> this more than every other thing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cor
>> >>>
>> >>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>> >>> news:1167150938.595059.238290@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> > Cor,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Why the add, update and delete?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > What I have done is create the Select, Insert, Update and
>> >>> > Delete
>> >>> > methods on the TableAdapter with input parameters against a
>> >>> > stored
>> >>> > procedure which works with the multiple tables.  They still
>> >>> > appear as
>> >>> > a
>> >>> > single table to the TableAdapter, but I handle all of the
>> >>> > details like
>> >>> > child tables with foreign key references.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > It is working quite well, but it would be great if the wizard
>> >>> > would be
>> >>> > smart enough to realize that I am joining tables in the Select
>> >>> > method
>> >>> > and then generate the Insert, Update and Delete methods.
>> >>> > Perhaps that
>> >>> > level of complexity is something the wizard is not meant to
>> >>> > attempt.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > At least I can back them with my own sprocs.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Brennan
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> >>> >> Offwhite,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update
>> >>> >> command
>> >>> >> for
>> >>> >> each
>> >>> >> table.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> In common is the routine,
>> >>> >> first the added parent rows
>> >>> >> secondly the added child rows
>> >>> >> thirth update the parent rows
>> >>> >> fourth update the child rows
>> >>> >> fifth delete the child rows
>> >>> >> sixt delete the parent rows
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are using
>> >>> >> copies.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I hope this helps,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Cor
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>

> But they *did* answer your question, several times, and the
> answer is: No.
>
> The only way to accomplish this is the way you did.
>
> There are too many possibilities for this kind of thing to be
> auto-generated. I'd be surprised if DLinq resolves this.
>
> As for Mr. Vaughn, he is just trying to help you by selling
> you a copy of his fine book. (Not that there's anything wrong
> with that.)
>
> Good luck.
>
> Robin S.
> -----------------------------------
>
> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167423570.397012.10310@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > This thread has been entirely unhelpful.  The responses do not appear
> > to relate directly to the problem I proposed and instead raise points
> > which are not explained in relation to the original problem.
> >
> > Please, if you do respond to a question do so by making a point which
> > is related to the original post and then explaining your point instead
> > of relying on innuendo or references to a book most people reading the
> > newsgroup do not have on hand.
> >
> > Brennan
> >
> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
> >> Bill,
> >>
> >> Wrong place I mail you by email my comment.
> >>
> >> Cor
> >>
> >> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveT***@nwlink.com> schreef in
> >> bericht
> >> news:ekevJRjKHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> > If you had read my books you would know that pessimistic locks make
> >> > sense
> >> > in some cases, but the discussion here has little to do with that
> >> > approach. What I am suggesting is that the query strategy that
> >> > requires
> >> > 5-minute locking be reevaluated. ADO.NET is not JUST for
> >> > disconnected data
> >> > architectures. It can (and is) used for Connected architectures as
> >> > well.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > ____________________________________
> >> > William (Bill) Vaughn
> >> > Author, Mentor, Consultant
> >> > Microsoft MVP
> >> > INETA Speaker
> >> > www.betav.com/blog/billva
> >> > www.betav.com
> >> > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
> >> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >> > rights.
> >> > __________________________________
> >> > Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest
> >> > book:
> >> > Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
> >> > and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:1167188569.799593.53520@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> Cor,
> >> >>
> >> >> I think DLinq will make these sorts of concerns go away,
> >> >> hopefully.  I
> >> >> have yet to dig into that with this sort of scenario.  However,
> >> >> that
> >> >> does appear it will encourage developers to glue the BLL directly
> >> >> to
> >> >> the database server  instead of planning and implementing a DAL.
> >> >> So it
> >> >> could introduce as many problems as it solves.  I hope this
> >> >> concern is
> >> >> being addressed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Brennan
> >> >>
> >> >> Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
> >> >>> Brennan,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The (Microsoft) wizards are not able to do what you ask, we don't
> >> >>> know
> >> >>> what
> >> >>> the future will bring, but I think that all real .Net developers
> >> >>> would
> >> >>> need
> >> >>> this more than every other thing.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Cor
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> >> >>> news:1167150938.595059.238290@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> > Cor,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Why the add, update and delete?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > What I have done is create the Select, Insert, Update and
> >> >>> > Delete
> >> >>> > methods on the TableAdapter with input parameters against a
> >> >>> > stored
> >> >>> > procedure which works with the multiple tables.  They still
> >> >>> > appear as
> >> >>> > a
> >> >>> > single table to the TableAdapter, but I handle all of the
> >> >>> > details like
> >> >>> > child tables with foreign key references.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > It is working quite well, but it would be great if the wizard
> >> >>> > would be
> >> >>> > smart enough to realize that I am joining tables in the Select
> >> >>> > method
> >> >>> > and then generate the Insert, Update and Delete methods.
> >> >>> > Perhaps that
> >> >>> > level of complexity is something the wizard is not meant to
> >> >>> > attempt.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > At least I can back them with my own sprocs.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Brennan
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
> >> >>> >> Offwhite,
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update
> >> >>> >> command
> >> >>> >> for
> >> >>> >> each
> >> >>> >> table.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> In common is the routine,
> >> >>> >> first the added parent rows
> >> >>> >> secondly the added child rows
> >> >>> >> thirth update the parent rows
> >> >>> >> fourth update the child rows
> >> >>> >> fifth delete the child rows
> >> >>> >> sixt delete the parent rows
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are using
> >> >>> >> copies.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> I hope this helps,
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Cor
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >

"offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1167714157.759179.137120@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Robin,
>
> I would not say that their response was simply no.  It looked like that
> Vaughn was trying to imply that the answer was buried somewhere in his
> book.  Since I have access to that book through the Safari bookshelf I
> was able to skim that chapter and it did not cover my question.  It
> instead covered a single table to adapter example.
>
> A simple no was the response would have prevented me from search for
> the "right" solution.
>
> I often answer questions when I have the right information and do so by
> responding with a short answer and a link or two to MSDN docs which
> support my answer so that readers can get right to solving their issue.
> There is no need to rant about how a TableAdapter or DataSet does not
> solve every problem in ADO.NET or to suggest vaguely that my approach
> is somehow flawed.  Doing so is just a distraction.
>
> Brennan
>
> RobinS wrote:
>> But they *did* answer your question, several times, and the
>> answer is: No.
>>
>> The only way to accomplish this is the way you did.
>>
>> There are too many possibilities for this kind of thing to be
>> auto-generated. I'd be surprised if DLinq resolves this.
>>
>> As for Mr. Vaughn, he is just trying to help you by selling
>> you a copy of his fine book. (Not that there's anything wrong
>> with that.)
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> Robin S.
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167423570.397012.10310@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > This thread has been entirely unhelpful.  The responses do not appear
>> > to relate directly to the problem I proposed and instead raise points
>> > which are not explained in relation to the original problem.
>> >
>> > Please, if you do respond to a question do so by making a point which
>> > is related to the original post and then explaining your point instead
>> > of relying on innuendo or references to a book most people reading the
>> > newsgroup do not have on hand.
>> >
>> > Brennan
>> >
>> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> >> Bill,
>> >>
>> >> Wrong place I mail you by email my comment.
>> >>
>> >> Cor
>> >>
>> >> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveT***@nwlink.com> schreef in
>> >> bericht
>> >> news:ekevJRjKHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > If you had read my books you would know that pessimistic locks make
>> >> > sense
>> >> > in some cases, but the discussion here has little to do with that
>> >> > approach. What I am suggesting is that the query strategy that
>> >> > requires
>> >> > 5-minute locking be reevaluated. ADO.NET is not JUST for
>> >> > disconnected data
>> >> > architectures. It can (and is) used for Connected architectures as
>> >> > well.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > ____________________________________
>> >> > William (Bill) Vaughn
>> >> > Author, Mentor, Consultant
>> >> > Microsoft MVP
>> >> > INETA Speaker
>> >> > www.betav.com/blog/billva
>> >> > www.betav.com
>> >> > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>> >> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> >> > rights.
>> >> > __________________________________
>> >> > Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my latest
>> >> > book:
>> >> > Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
>> >> > and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition (EBook)
>> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:1167188569.799593.53520@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> Cor,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think DLinq will make these sorts of concerns go away,
>> >> >> hopefully.  I
>> >> >> have yet to dig into that with this sort of scenario.  However,
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> does appear it will encourage developers to glue the BLL directly
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> the database server  instead of planning and implementing a DAL.
>> >> >> So it
>> >> >> could introduce as many problems as it solves.  I hope this
>> >> >> concern is
>> >> >> being addressed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Brennan
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> >> >>> Brennan,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The (Microsoft) wizards are not able to do what you ask, we don't
>> >> >>> know
>> >> >>> what
>> >> >>> the future will bring, but I think that all real .Net developers
>> >> >>> would
>> >> >>> need
>> >> >>> this more than every other thing.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Cor
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>> >> >>> news:1167150938.595059.238290@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>> > Cor,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Why the add, update and delete?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > What I have done is create the Select, Insert, Update and
>> >> >>> > Delete
>> >> >>> > methods on the TableAdapter with input parameters against a
>> >> >>> > stored
>> >> >>> > procedure which works with the multiple tables.  They still
>> >> >>> > appear as
>> >> >>> > a
>> >> >>> > single table to the TableAdapter, but I handle all of the
>> >> >>> > details like
>> >> >>> > child tables with foreign key references.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > It is working quite well, but it would be great if the wizard
>> >> >>> > would be
>> >> >>> > smart enough to realize that I am joining tables in the Select
>> >> >>> > method
>> >> >>> > and then generate the Insert, Update and Delete methods.
>> >> >>> > Perhaps that
>> >> >>> > level of complexity is something the wizard is not meant to
>> >> >>> > attempt.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > At least I can back them with my own sprocs.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Brennan
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> >> >>> >> Offwhite,
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update
>> >> >>> >> command
>> >> >>> >> for
>> >> >>> >> each
>> >> >>> >> table.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> In common is the routine,
>> >> >>> >> first the added parent rows
>> >> >>> >> secondly the added child rows
>> >> >>> >> thirth update the parent rows
>> >> >>> >> fourth update the child rows
>> >> >>> >> fifth delete the child rows
>> >> >>> >> sixt delete the parent rows
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are using
>> >> >>> >> copies.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> I hope this helps,
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Cor
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>

"offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167714157.759179.137120@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Robin,
>
> I would not say that their response was simply no.  It looked like
> that
> Vaughn was trying to imply that the answer was buried somewhere in his
> book.  Since I have access to that book through the Safari bookshelf I
> was able to skim that chapter and it did not cover my question.  It
> instead covered a single table to adapter example.
>
> A simple no was the response would have prevented me from search for
> the "right" solution.
>
> I often answer questions when I have the right information and do so
> by
> responding with a short answer and a link or two to MSDN docs which
> support my answer so that readers can get right to solving their
> issue.
> There is no need to rant about how a TableAdapter or DataSet does not
> solve every problem in ADO.NET or to suggest vaguely that my approach
> is somehow flawed.  Doing so is just a distraction.
>
> Brennan
>
> RobinS wrote:
>> But they *did* answer your question, several times, and the
>> answer is: No.
>>
>> The only way to accomplish this is the way you did.
>>
>> There are too many possibilities for this kind of thing to be
>> auto-generated. I'd be surprised if DLinq resolves this.
>>
>> As for Mr. Vaughn, he is just trying to help you by selling
>> you a copy of his fine book. (Not that there's anything wrong
>> with that.)
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> Robin S.
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167423570.397012.10310@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > This thread has been entirely unhelpful.  The responses do not
>> > appear
>> > to relate directly to the problem I proposed and instead raise
>> > points
>> > which are not explained in relation to the original problem.
>> >
>> > Please, if you do respond to a question do so by making a point
>> > which
>> > is related to the original post and then explaining your point
>> > instead
>> > of relying on innuendo or references to a book most people reading
>> > the
>> > newsgroup do not have on hand.
>> >
>> > Brennan
>> >
>> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> >> Bill,
>> >>
>> >> Wrong place I mail you by email my comment.
>> >>
>> >> Cor
>> >>
>> >> "William (Bill) Vaughn" <billvaRemoveT***@nwlink.com> schreef in
>> >> bericht
>> >> news:ekevJRjKHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> > If you had read my books you would know that pessimistic locks
>> >> > make
>> >> > sense
>> >> > in some cases, but the discussion here has little to do with
>> >> > that
>> >> > approach. What I am suggesting is that the query strategy that
>> >> > requires
>> >> > 5-minute locking be reevaluated. ADO.NET is not JUST for
>> >> > disconnected data
>> >> > architectures. It can (and is) used for Connected architectures
>> >> > as
>> >> > well.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > ____________________________________
>> >> > William (Bill) Vaughn
>> >> > Author, Mentor, Consultant
>> >> > Microsoft MVP
>> >> > INETA Speaker
>> >> > www.betav.com/blog/billva
>> >> > www.betav.com
>> >> > Please reply only to the newsgroup so that others can benefit.
>> >> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
>> >> > no
>> >> > rights.
>> >> > __________________________________
>> >> > Visit www.hitchhikerguides.net to get more information on my
>> >> > latest
>> >> > book:
>> >> > Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition)
>> >> > and Hitchhiker's Guide to SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition
>> >> > (EBook)
>> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:1167188569.799593.53520@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> Cor,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think DLinq will make these sorts of concerns go away,
>> >> >> hopefully.  I
>> >> >> have yet to dig into that with this sort of scenario.  However,
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> does appear it will encourage developers to glue the BLL
>> >> >> directly
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> the database server  instead of planning and implementing a
>> >> >> DAL.
>> >> >> So it
>> >> >> could introduce as many problems as it solves.  I hope this
>> >> >> concern is
>> >> >> being addressed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Brennan
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> >> >>> Brennan,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The (Microsoft) wizards are not able to do what you ask, we
>> >> >>> don't
>> >> >>> know
>> >> >>> what
>> >> >>> the future will bring, but I think that all real .Net
>> >> >>> developers
>> >> >>> would
>> >> >>> need
>> >> >>> this more than every other thing.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Cor
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "offwhite" <offwh***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>> >> >>> news:1167150938.595059.238290@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>> > Cor,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Why the add, update and delete?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > What I have done is create the Select, Insert, Update and
>> >> >>> > Delete
>> >> >>> > methods on the TableAdapter with input parameters against a
>> >> >>> > stored
>> >> >>> > procedure which works with the multiple tables.  They still
>> >> >>> > appear as
>> >> >>> > a
>> >> >>> > single table to the TableAdapter, but I handle all of the
>> >> >>> > details like
>> >> >>> > child tables with foreign key references.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > It is working quite well, but it would be great if the
>> >> >>> > wizard
>> >> >>> > would be
>> >> >>> > smart enough to realize that I am joining tables in the
>> >> >>> > Select
>> >> >>> > method
>> >> >>> > and then generate the Insert, Update and Delete methods.
>> >> >>> > Perhaps that
>> >> >>> > level of complexity is something the wizard is not meant to
>> >> >>> > attempt.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > At least I can back them with my own sprocs.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Brennan
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Cor Ligthert [MVP] wrote:
>> >> >>> >> Offwhite,
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> In my opinion can you use the wizards, to create an update
>> >> >>> >> command
>> >> >>> >> for
>> >> >>> >> each
>> >> >>> >> table.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> However be aware that you do the update using the rowstate
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.datarowview.aspx
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> In common is the routine,
>> >> >>> >> first the added parent rows
>> >> >>> >> secondly the added child rows
>> >> >>> >> thirth update the parent rows
>> >> >>> >> fourth update the child rows
>> >> >>> >> fifth delete the child rows
>> >> >>> >> sixt delete the parent rows
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Than do an acceptchanges on the dataset because you are
>> >> >>> >> using
>> >> >>> >> copies.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> I hope this helps,
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Cor
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>