Does the Microsoft DataGridView control support multiple bands (i.e.
expanding rows with embedded grids). If not, can anyone recommend a
good third-party solution for someone needing to manually build out a
multi-band grid without a fixed data source. The Infragistics controls
seem to be based entirely around a data source. I really don't want the
control to try and "help me" in this way. I just want maximum
flexibility at run-time.

The legacy Grid control fromt he 1.0 framework looks like an option,
but I'd like to know if there is something better.

Thanks

The Microsoft DataGridView control does not support heirarchical
datasets like the Microsoft MSHFlexGrid control did.

Robin S.
----------------------------------------
"JDeats" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Does the Microsoft DataGridView control support multiple bands (i.e.
> expanding rows with embedded grids). If not, can anyone recommend a
> good third-party solution for someone needing to manually build out a
> multi-band grid without a fixed data source. The Infragistics controls
> seem to be based entirely around a data source. I really don't want
> the
> control to try and "help me" in this way. I just want maximum
> flexibility at run-time.
>
> The legacy Grid control fromt he 1.0 framework looks like an option,
> but I'd like to know if there is something better.
>
> Thanks
>

Check out the Spread control from Farpoint (fpoint.com).

"JDeats" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Does the Microsoft DataGridView control support multiple bands (i.e.
> expanding rows with embedded grids). If not, can anyone recommend a
> good third-party solution for someone needing to manually build out a
> multi-band grid without a fixed data source. The Infragistics controls
> seem to be based entirely around a data source. I really don't want the
> control to try and "help me" in this way. I just want maximum
> flexibility at run-time.
>
> The legacy Grid control fromt he 1.0 framework looks like an option,
> but I'd like to know if there is something better.
>
> Thanks
>