New to Filemaker Developer...

[rheric]

...or is it FileMaker Advanced now with version 9?

 

My situation is this:

 

I've worked on an FileMaker application for a while now, and was considering finishing up some last modifications and turning it into a "commercial" product. I'd like to be able to do this as neatly as possible (read: as little work on my part as possible once it is ready to sell). As this isn't my primary income, if it sells, great. If not, not the end of the world (Unless it sells thousands of copies...in which case it becomes my new job!).

 

Ideally, I'd like to offer something that is quick to install and can be used by multiple users over a network. Nothing Internet (yet), and if possible I'd love to make it a runtime package, not requiring the buyer to own FileMaker. I was all set to get myself a copy of FileMaker Advanced...

 

Until I read that applications created in Advanced as standalone products cannot be used on a network. My first thought was, "Are you KIDDING me?" - who in their right mind would spend money on an IDE that creates a database application that can only be used on a single machine? Are we not in the year 2008? Networked applications are the norm...

 

So my question is: is there a way to use Advanced to fulfill my needs? Requiring the users to have FileMaker cuts down the potential customer base significantly, and requiring them to have FileMaker Server or something like that is just too much hassle and too much involvement.

 

Thanks for any help and any feedback!

[AHunter3]

Nope, you got it in one.

 

The runtime engines produced with FileMaker Advanced/Developer do not allow for multiple concurrent users over a network; they are for single-user databases only.

 

Choices for multi-user solutions are "every client runs FileMaker Pro as their client software, for full feature deployment", or "some or all clients open the db in a web browser, for limited feature deployment". Web browsers are free but the server sw to host the db for any serious web-based traffic is more expensive than the server sw to host the db for FileMaker Pro clients.

 

You aren't unique or alone in thinking this is an unfortunate state of affairs, but it's an old argument within the dev community — dating back to FileMaker Pro v. 4 —*and such sentiment has not swayed FileMaker Inc yet.

[rheric]

That truly is unfortunate. It basically backs me into the decision to use another product. Oracle XE with either APEX or some other front end that I can compile into something that can be run on a network. Who knows...

 

The really, REALLY unfortunate thing is that the current version is built in FileMaker 8.5. Moving on to another product to make a commercial release means, essentially, giving up on FileMaker. And never coming back...

 

Any idea if any of the FM devs read these posts? Not that I think my situation would change their mind, but it never hurts to hear the argument, AGAIN. smiley-tongue-out

 

Thanks for the fast, and honest, reply.

[Norma_Snockurs]

...I read that applications created in Advanced as standalone products cannot be used on a network.

Most of the answers to your questions can be found in Chapter 7 of the 'FMPA8_Development.pdf' guide that installs with FM 8.5A (in English Extras/Electronic Documentation).

A clue to the non-networkability of bound runtimes is in this paragraph:

 

"The Define File References dialog box lists all the files references in

the current database....The reference will look like this: file:MyFile.fp7."

 

- Which pretty conclusively appears to rule out any possibility of the reference being able to start with 'fmnet:' and thus be networkable. Otherwise the documentation is suspiciously devoid of any mention of the un-networkability of FileMaker runtimes.

 

 

Requiring the users to have FileMaker cuts down the potential customer base significantly, and requiring them to have FileMaker Server or something like that is just too much hassle and too much involvement.

Not from FileMaker's point of view. I'd say it widens the potential customer base significantly for them and, as they are a business, the model makes perfect sense to me even it sucks from the user-developer point of view. Every networkable runtime is potentially a lost sale of FM Server and/or n copies of FM Pro - a loss of maybe thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.

Think about what you are saying. Bar networking & development, a FileMaker runtime will do just about everything the FM Pro app. itself will do. Are you expecting, for the price of a single FMP Advanced license, FileMaker to give you effectively as many copies of FM Pro as you want (which they are doing already with the runtime functionality) and a copy of FM Server too?

 

This paper here contains, amongst many other great tips, some very good advice for new developers considering deploying their solutions as a commercial product.

[rheric]

Thanks for the feedback, Norma. I will definitely check out that paper, though to be honest, FileMaker has nearly made my decision for me. I don't have the time, energy, or, honestly desire, to turn this application into a full-time job/business. I was hoping to make some money on the side and see if it took off or not, with the shortest development timeline and the least amount of new resources.

 

Yes, it makes sense from FileMaker's perspective. Unless, that is, you look at it from the perspective of "I'm a developer looking to make a commercial product and will NEVER use FileMaker because of their assinine restrictions." Then no one makes money - me or FileMaker, as I don't buy their product and encourage others to avoid them as well. Just my take on it...not worth a red cent to FileMaker or anyone else, really. smiley-laughing