Bi-directional filtering of cascading combos

[goodguy]

I have a chain of 3 tables with 1-M relationships where only the most immediate foreign key is carried forward, as follows:
Table1: Table1PK and fields
Table2: Table2PK, Table1FK and fields
Table3: Table3PK, Table2FK and fields
Table4: Table4PK, Table3FK and fields.
So if I know the values of Table4PK and Table3FK, I can find Table2FK and Table1FK by tracing upward. So far, so good.

I am trying to make the form for Table4 more friendly by offering users the option to start drilling down from comboTable1PK, whose value filters the recordsource for comboTable2PK and so on.

Only Table4 records are bound (for updates). For new records, this seems to work fine. However when scrolling through the current records, I want comboTable2PK and comboTable1PK to populate based on the value of comboTable3PK.

How can I implement bi-directional filters on the same three comboboxes:


1. Filter the recordsource of the child combobox when the parent combo value changes in AddNew or Edit modes.
2. Set the parent combo value when the child combo value changes in Normal mode.

N.B: I am not using the AfterUpdate or Changed events to filter the recordsources, simply set the filter in the query.

[goodguy]

Any help will be appreciated. I hope this question is not very hard to understand.

[goodguy]

Is this too complicated for all the pros out here?

[Deaner117]

I know this thread is ages old, but I'm also interested in accomplishing this.

[ssanfu]

@ Deaner117
What you have done is called "Hi-jacking a thread".
You should start your own thread and reference this post in your question. You will get more responses since your thread (question) will be newer.

[CJ_London]

google 'cascading combo boxes'

[Missinglinq]

...You will get more responses since your thread (question) will be newer...

And hopefully, you'll be able to describe exactly what you're trying to do, much better and more succinctly, than the original poster did; you'll notice that the thread has been viewed over 600 times but no one responded until your post...almost assuredly because no one could understand the question that was being posed.

Linq ;0)>

[Deaner117]

Thanks guys. I'll make a new post. @Ajax I have, and I get a lot of something that I'm not looking for.

[CJ_London]

I get a lot of something that I'm not looking for.

demonstrates the effect of not providing a clear description of what is required