Multiple records in a subform

[rashima]

I have a unbound subform on my main form and I want my users to enter multiple records into this subform so on button click I can save these records into database (sql-server)



But I can only enter 1st record, its not going to 2nd record....any help

[pbaldy]

If you want to enter multiple records, the form has to be bound. If you don't want to bind it to the actual table, you can use a local table and copy the records in your button click.

[Missinglinq]

...I can only enter 1st record...

In point of fact, you cannot even enter one Record, because Unbound Forms contain no Records! What you're actually doing is entering data into a group of Controls. As Paul said, to enter Records your Form has to be Bound to something, even if it is only a temporary or local Table.

But in taking this route you're really making an huge amount of unnecessary work for yourself! Why do you feel that this has to be done with an Unbound Form?

Linq ;0)>

[rashima]

thx paul and missinglinq , can you suggest what is the best way to do this

I have main input form with some controls where users can fill information and this information will be saved in a table(in sql-server via adodb connection) on button click.
but together with this I have a child table also in sql-server which need to be filled with this unbound subform information.

First I tried to use 3 listboxes to fill 3 fields info into child table but this is not very userfriendly if we have many records.

I don't habe link tables just working with adodb connection, any suggestions ??

[Missinglinq]

...But in taking this route you're really making an huge amount of unnecessary work for yourself! Why do you feel that this has to be done with an Unbound Form?

Still waiting for an answer as to why you feel it is necessary to do this with an Unbound Subform! Nothing you have posted even remotely suggests the need for it to be done this way, and you're making things unnecessarily hard for yourself. Perhaps if you explained why you're taking this approach we could suggest a much easier alternative.

Linq ;0)>