Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Johnny Boy

Number of tables

Recommended Posts

Johnny Boy

Good morning!

Design question.

Is there any reason that I would not include all my tables in one file?

Thanks!

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FileMakin' Tom

Well, That's precisely what FMP 7 does. In lieu of many icons in a folder, with FM 7, you can reduce that to a single Icon as all tables reside within one file (Correct me if I am wrong, fellas and gals). It was a major step for FM and one that takes some learning.

 

As to FM 6 and below, you will have to abide with individual files related to one another.

 

Be well . . .

 

Tom laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leoff

YES YES! You are so right on Tom...FM7 promotes the use of one file containing muliptle tables. The initial conversion and migration may be difficult, but long term the new solution is a great boost!

 

I converted a solution with 8 files into one file with 8 tables. The new format makes it so much easier as one adds new tables. The relationship building is a super way to add new relationships, the graphic views are superb!

 

The only downfall is that you really MUST take the time to convert all those files into tables the first time. If only there was a way to 'import' and transfer the information (definitions and layouts), then WOW!

 

Overall, the program is a great new application...

 

Go for it!

 

Leoff smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andygaunt

Leoff -

 

You should look at FMRobot by New Millennium www.nmci.com

 

This can assist in the conversion of files into tables. While it will not bring your layouts over, it certainly gets you on the right track quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harryglos

Hi Johnny boy

 

One other thing I'd like to add to the mix are SCRIPTS. It's important to keep track of what scripts pertain to what files in the initial conversation. In FMP 7 one scripts can be used over all tables. That is not true in earlier versions, so keeping track of "scripts to layout" will make your life much easier! You also do not want a bunch of scripts left over in your new 7 solution from your older solution that are no longer used. It not only adds to confusion it adds to the overhead!

 

Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harryglos

I just had a thought to share concerning "FMRobot" by New Millennium. It's an excellent product but I think for $200.00 it only makes sense for large sophisticated solutions, where data/system tracking is vital! It's like my Dad would always say, "don't use an 18 wheeler when the job just calls for a pick-em-up-truck". Just a thought!

 

Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny Boy

Thanks to all. I started @ 10 years ago with access. Thankfully a good friend (now with Apple) showed me FMP 5. Been hooked since. It's not just the program (it's great) it's more you people. You are so all helpfull. This is a great community.

Harry - I am not using FM Robot but rather doing a complete re-write of my 100 plus files. Yea it's a job but I didn't want get stuck thinking FMP 5.?

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harryglos

Johnny Boy,

 

Good move switching over to 7.0... It really is well worth the time.

BTW are you saying that you have one solution with 100 related files? Or you have a total of 100 separate files you wish to convert to 7? I just realized we may have misunderstood the question you posted.

 

Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boo

Harry do we have to recreate the whole of the datbase which is about 50 files or is there a better way to merge all the files?

 

Boo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harryglos

Hi Boo,

 

I'm not sure I understand your post. If you're asking do you have to recreate your old files the answer is no. FileMaker 7 will convert them and maintain the same single file format. But you will lose a lot of power and functionality in 7 by maintain that format.

If you're asking for a way of merging files and data I would recommend you see a post on this forum called "To upgrade or not to upgrade?". It has a lot of information on converting files with places to go that will help make the project a little easier. Post us back if I've not answered your question.

 

Knock-knock... Who's there? Boo! Boo Who? If you're going to cry, I'm not going to tell you!

 

Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andygaunt

Harry -

 

Yet again, you lead me to say ROFLMAO!!! laugh.gif

 

This time however YKWIM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny Boy

Harry

Three business' with at present 100+ files. Not totally related but somewhat. My plan is to build three different solutions and then relate the files where necessary.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boo

Thanks Harry... smile.gif

 

Originally posted by HarryGlos:

[qb]

Knock-knock... Who's there? Boo! Boo Who? If you're going to cry, I'm not going to tell you!

 

Harry [/qb]

lol.. i'm not going to cry...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harryglos

Hi Johnny Boy,

 

As you convert to 7 here are some things to think about. I know you know all of this, but sometimes its just good to hear it again. I know, “I’m preaching to the quire”!

 

1. Follow the file path from File conversion to Tables

2. Make sure and associate scripts to layout so it will be easier to make changes and delete unnecessary and duplicated scripts from other files. Now you have a file and scripts associated with that file in that file. That will not be the case when you convert. You will also need to change some of your scripts because they call different peramiters new in 7.

3. Print out the Field Definitions of each file to be converted. I can’t tell you how important that is. Changes you make to fields, deletions, calculations etc... show that on the hard copy so you know what you’ve done. Back up, back up, back up. I make a full backup 4 times a day.... 95% of the time I never go back to them... But oh man that last 5% can be a killer!

 

Of course Andy did it again... YKWIM... Whatever that means!

 

Can you imagine a conversation with Andy... “O yes I went out to DAPTD with SSPOL and had a DDPSY time. I couldn’t believe what AATFF said about YTQQJ it was just RAUUQ!

The worst part about it is Andy understood that entire dialog. The boy needs some real professional help, but don’t tell him I said that! And they say I have too much time on my hands!

 

Hay Boo, thanks for "No Tears"!

 

Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FileMakin' Tom

Harry - it is "Choir" (as in church) not "quire" as in 10 reams of paper. And Andy's post means "You Know What I Mean"

 

ROFLMAO

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harryglos

Thanks Tom and thanks for the correction, I didn't catch it man! So you're saying "talking to the paper" doesn't work for you? How do you know it wasn't something in Pogo-isim you guys like so much!

 

QYURE... Quell Yesterdays Urges Regarding Eavesdropping!

 

Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leoff

...you guys are just too funny! Medication helps...LOL...

 

100 files to convert?! OUCH!

 

Leoff tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny Boy

All

First - Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will not be converting. Rather re-write to take advantage of new stuff and design. I will convert when done only to import data.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikehkg

Hi Folks

 

a) basically the question starting this thread has not been replied to my satifsaction:: if one has an existing solution which, lets assume can be imported to fm 7 more or less flawlessly; should he really bother to merge those xx files into one, because it will significantly change the end user's experience with the solution? Or is the mergin a thing to do just because its now possible and more tidy from the outside? What are the downsides of working ahead with those 100 files?

 

b) Layout-specific scripts, do u mean table-specific scripts? I haven't used FM 7 yet, would it mean if i have 5 files of 100 scripts each, all those scripts would be listed at the same place now and i would enter trouble unless i rename all the scripts BEFORE converting and merging into one file so that i can recognize which table they are belonging to?

 

c) FMRobot only talks about fields and their format, but not about the scripts. I hope it also imports the scripts!

Another tool to convert FM Databases is FM Pro Migrator (http://www.fmpromigrator.com) and it costs only 100 $.

 

c) its a big dissapointment for me that FileMaker does not provide a conversion- and merge multiple-files into one tool; No matter how great the improvements in 7 are, i think in regard of end users, Filemaker has made some very unfair decisions.

 

Our existing solution works perfectly well, but i can't run FM 5 on OS X, so i am poisoned to buy the upgrade, face serveral weeks of converting and getting the solution running again (yes, we skipped the upgrade to FM 6..)

 

My company now is saving money to upgrade all stations to Filemaker 7, but first we need to buy a PC (because there are no conversion tools available which run 100% on the MacOS as far as i know), then we need to buy the conversion software and go trough converting about 70 files totalling thousands of scripts and more than 500 layouts.

 

This appears to be the most unfriendly upgrade i ever saw from Filemaker (which i use since 1992) or any other software.

 

I mean, HTFCTIAULTU!

 

cyberme@altern.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FileMakin' Tom

You can say that again, Mikehkg. I know that the structure of 7 is very different than previous versions, but FM dropped the ball by not allowing one to upgrade older solutions to the the new format with confidence and accuracy. Plus, it was rushed to market as 6 did not inspire very good sales (should have been 5.6). I've been doing this since FMv.1 and am VERY disappointed in FMP 7.

 

Be well . . .

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugo DI LUCA

Tom,

 

I know you were disappointed with FM7, as I was when it was launched with my old OS9.

But...honestly this version has nothing to do with what FileMaker was. This one is "Pro", while the other could have stayed FileMaker.

 

The structure is so radically different that it doesn't surprise me that FMRobot costs 200$.

This said, I just hope noone would ever ask me to convert old files to v7, firstly because it has no sense to me if the solution is running well with 6.

If this solution should benefit from the new 7 features, better re-creating it from scratch.

 

Be well too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FileMakin' Tom

Ugo . . .

 

My complaint is that FM abandoned all developers who had tens of thousands of hours invested in multiple file solutions. They did not even attempt to create a converter, forcing we developers to either spend tens of thousands more hours replacing layouts, deleting scripts (perhaps the incorrect ones as well) and/or rewriting a perfectly acceptable and working solution to keep up with their changes.

 

I own FM7 Developer but do not use it . . . nor do I think I ever will. I left the Mac platform because of unwarranted and ridiculous changes simply to increase sales. All FM7 really is - is an extension of Brian Dunning's format of making a "Master" file from which one always viewed portals of the other files, so that one was always in the master file for everything.

 

Personally, the way I design solutions, the user cannot make a mistake and open the wrong file as all default to a main directional file. I really don't see how having everything in one file is an advantage. How about crashes? With FM7, you chance losing everything. With previous versions, perhaps one file is corrupted and must be rebuilt (or rescued from a back-up). And everyone knows how recalcitrant users are to perform regular backups. Plus, my clients feel like a solution with 10-25 files is worth a helluva lot more than the same solution with a single file. Perhaps that is not viewing things realistically, but that's how they feel. ("You mean you want $XX,XXX.XX for that one puny little file?")

 

Nope. It's cutesy . . . but along with the rest of the dinosaurs, I will make a fine living fixing and creating solutions for the thousands of clients who will not move up to 7 for many and various reasons. (Do you suppose that is why I am so darned busy?)

 

Be well back atcha . . .

 

Tom laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Audio Freak
Originally posted by Ugo DI LUCA:

 

This said, I just hope noone would ever ask me to convert old files to v7, firstly because it has no sense to me if the solution is running well with 6.

 

Be well too. [/QB]

EXACTLY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LaRetta
Tom said ...FM abandoned all developers who had tens of thousands of hours invested in multiple file solutions.
Are you aware that with vs. 7 you can keep your multiple-file solutions? FM 7 gives you both options of design - one file or many. People complained about FM being multiple file not one. Now you can have both! Abandoned? Nope. I feel they did a wonderful job with 7, addressing both styles, and your statement is inaccurate.

 

Conversion works quite well. Admittedly it doesn't take advantage of the full power of 7 and you have to add Commit Records through many of your scripts but I know several that are using converted programs just fine.

 

As for any business that places value in number of files instead of the quality of the solution? You can win either way - use 7 and make their multiple files for them. wink.gif

 

LaRetta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harryglos

Greetings, Condolence's, salutations etc., etc., and all that other good stuff,

 

I’ve not heard so much crying and whining since the big rent strike of 47! Sometimes we just don’t understand what is happening. Like the police officer who was driving down the expressway, looked over and saw a woman knitting. He yelled over to her “Pull Over” and she yelled back “Cardigan”! You cannot make the changes that FileMaker did and do it piecemeal! Did it cost us and our customers money? Yes! Did it require us to learn a new product and un-learn the old? Yes! Is there a huge future benefit to 7? Yes! FileMaker isn’t perfect, but it’s getting there? Yes, Yes, Yes...

 

Let me see if I can answer a little of “Mikehkg” questions.

 

There are some significant efficiencies in FileMaker Pro 7 putting many tables in one file. It's much more efficient to design a solution without having to switch files. You can define all the tables, fields, and relationships in one dialog. You can also introduce great efficiencies by putting all interface elements in one file. In one layout list, you can manage layouts representing all table occurrences, making it easy to script navigation between tables with just a "Go to Layout" step. There are other big enhancements to productivity, including script parameters, custom functions, the Evaluate and Let functions, and the benefits of designing with multiple windows to the same file, representing the same or different layouts. You can look at two layouts in the same file side by side, or at the same layout in layout mode and browse mode at the same time.

 

I would not recommend you try to learn 7 by converting a complex solution, it can be much too confusing. Start by building a new “Simple” solution. See how easy it is creating multiple tables in one file. See the efficiency of the new scripting, especially script parameters. You must understand the relationships graph and the management of the context from your calculations and scripts will evaluate. You’ll want to understand the power of the new security model. You’ll want to learn your options for solution architecture with your interface in the same file as your data tables, or in an entirely separate file. Once you have a good understanding of the new environment, it will be much easier to consider the best approach to migrating your existing solution.

 

FileMaker solutions evolve over time based on knowledge gained from past experience and feedback from users. The evolution of 7 will be the same. Our knowledge of 7 is far less mature and it will take us a while to understand its nuances. It’s like a friend of mine who has been divorced a few times. He said the next time “He’s just going to find a woman he doesn’t like and just give her a house”!

 

The new 7 model can cause problems for scripts as I’ve mentioned in prior posts, that you didn't design to handle multiple windows and multiple locked records in multiple windows. To make sure it works like it did, leaving records in a committed state, you may have to add Commit Records steps after New Record, Duplicate Record, and Set Field script steps, and the end of scripts that edit records. Consider disabling the New Window menu item.

 

An important change to the 7 model is the way it accesses data from a different file as though it were in the same file. You design scripts and layouts in one file but you get their data from tables in another file. This feature is what makes it possible to begin to extend a converted and restored solution immediately.

 

As you move things forward, you can consolidate the interfaces into one file or a few files if you choose to do it that way. You can delete outdated and obsolete logic in calculation fields and scripts. The solution now has a 7 optimized interface, but its data tables are still contained in the original converted files.

 

The ability to edit file references directly makes it possible to change the data files from which the new interface file pulls the data. The process is relatively straightforward. Prepare a new consolidated data file (or files) with the same tables as the original data files. Then follow a simple process that re-points the new interface file at this new data file.

 

Hope this helps, I rambled on more than intended...

 

Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FileMakin' Tom

Thanx Harry . . .

 

Lucid, funny and informational as usual. But what about the many, many, many, many business people still running Mac OS 9.2 and Win 98?

 

I work primarily with smaller firms and they are rather tough to convince that a new OS (Often a new computer) is required simply because I have switched to FMP 7. I think not.

 

Tom laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harryglos

Greetings Tom and all other Posters,

 

I always try to ware two hats when I’m on the forum. Ok, three if you include moron! One as a developer building solutions for other companies and the other as a user and/or someone designing their own solution. In other words, I try to remember there can be more than one perspective!

 

It's hard to justify upgrading, especially to customers where everything is working fine and both software and hardware $ issues are involved.

 

I tell my customers about FileMaker Pro 7 and what the advantages are to them and the way they work. As developers we have a unique advantage no one else has. We developed their solution and inherently know the glue that holds it together. But even more important, we know how they use it and the way it interacts with their business. If I tell them they need to upgrade and why I think it’s important for them to do so, I fully expect them to do it! And with few exceptions, they do!

 

I was in a meeting the other day, on this very issue. There were 6 people and you know the group; Purchasing agent, IT guy, Marketing Guru etc. but only one real decision maker, Bob (changed name to protect the innocent) the VP Gen Mgr. I new Bob was against any expenditures and probably mine in protocolar, because as far as he was concerned, the current system I designed worked fine. So Bob walks in and sits down next to me and starts the meeting. Now understand the obvious here, it is not Bob’s job to know the difference between FileMaker 6 and 7 or where the benefit will be to his business... That’s my job! So once Bob turns the meeting over to me, I start by saying that Bob has approved (which he hadn’t) 5 of the 6 expenditures but unfortunately the 6th was the one that gave the approval for the other 5! Everyone laughed and no one louder than Bob. It soften the meeting and put everyone in a more receptive mood towards the presentation! Starting with the why of FileMaker 7 and ending with the “ROI”, Return On Investment of FileMaker 7! Now did I get the business, of course not! But they laughed about it right. But I digress, I did get the business because FileMaker 7 is that strong of a product...

 

If there is a point, it would be this. You don’t have to be weaned on a pickle to enjoy FileMaker! And we all know what Arnold would say “anybody who doesn’t like FileMaker 7 is a Girlie-mon”!

 

Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bigzilla

Hi Everybody,

 

I've been away for awhile and just read this post today. I just want all of you to know how great the information is and how much I enjoyed the humor used as well. It's refreshing!

 

Thanks Harry for the message

"Greetings, Condolence's, salutations etc., etc., and all that other good stuff".

It really helped me understand the new FileMaker and the how and why of it so to speak. So thanks to all of you.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FileMakin' Tom

Thank you Harry . . .

 

I apprethiate the thweet, thweet wordth . . .

 

Tom laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harryglos

You're welcome Tom... I love ya man!

 

Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please start a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use