34South

I am a decades long user of FM and very frequently use a simple New Window command from button script in my solutions to display a log of user login and logout activity. That layout points to a table which is populated with calculated fields to record account, IP, timestamp, etc. This all works perfectly. However, and perhaps my morning coffee just hasn't kicked in yet, the window always defaults to form view, even though I have repeatedly set it to table view and saved the window layout. When I manually change to browse mode after again setting the default view to table view (the attached images shows a greyed out form view option since I have disabled form and list views, even though I have repeatedly set it to table view and saved the layout), the window displays in table view. However, when I call the command from script, it reverts to form view! Similar scripts/layouts in other solutions perform as expected. There are no Script Triggers on the layout itself. I have created a new layout to test if there was something quirky with the original but the same occurs. I have used a workaround by including a script set to view as table, but that was never previously required.

I have often incorporated and even developed very successful machine loading models into FileMaker, but these are image detection models. I would like to use a text based model to determine the probability of the content of a text field being gibberish or whether it is populated with potentially meaningful English. Without having any experience in developing a text-based ML model, is there perhaps a downloadable model available?

If an institution is blocking access to FM Cloud, does one provide them with just the host address for the Cloud instance or also the IPs? In the case of the latter, does one provide the proxy IP or private IP or both?

I'm sure this was deprecated a few versions back, but it would be nice to get a full listing of active clients on the server. I used to use this to check for multiple logins with the same account (which was a security problem suggesting accounts were being shared). Now, it seems, one has to specify the Client ID to get Account Name info as LIST CLIENTS does not offer the same. One could first do a LIST CLIENTS to source the IDs and then loop through each client using the STATUS CLIENT Command, but a simple option to list all would save a lot of scripting.

Eventually I closed all databases, omitted all use of %20 and used filemac:/System/Volumes/FMP External/Container Data/ and reopened the databases on the server.

I can sense the eye rolls but, I’ve just upgraded to FMS19 on a MacPro after upgrading it to Big Sur and the database container fields are reporting missing files. I have defined the alternate database folder and its associated external storage volume which was verified. Could I have the syntax wrong? I have “filemac:/System/Volumes/External Data/Container Data/“. “External Data” is the name of my external drive. The “Volumes” folder is of course hidden but would that matter? I’ve tried unhiding it, but to no avail. Should one use “%20” in lieu of spaces? Should one use the sub folder “Container Data” in the path, or is that assumed anyway? I’ve tried these permutations but am getting nowhere. Does one need a restart after specifying the external container path - it didn’t seem to suggest so?

I have solved this problem.

I previously used ODBC Manager (32 bit) to great success importing data directly from Filemaker Server to JMP. I recently upgraded to Catalina (MacOS 10.15.5) and knew that one of the casualties would be this ODBC utility. I downloaded the 64 bit ODBC manager from Actual Technologies and successfully installed it but get the following message when trying to open an FM database from within the ODBC interface in JMP: dlopen(/Library/ODBC/FileMaker ODBC.bundle/Contents/MacOS/fmodbc.so, 6): image not found I have navigated to Actual Technologies' web site believing I should download an ODBC driver but this comes at a hefty price tag, especially when converted to my local currency. Given the increasing costs of maintenance contracts and SSL certificates I had hoped to avoid further expenditure. Do I really need this and is there an alternative?

I have put together what I firmly believe to be a very polished FM solution for IOS and plan to push this to Apple's App store as a first time developer quite soon using Filemaker's SDK/XCode kit. I do realise the complexity behind this, including catering for data protection during version updates, multilingual distribution, security options, etc. However, my question relates to the legality of: embedding the Web Viewer Tool in the App which, as a small feature of the App, will automatically search the internet for images based on existing field entries. using Google Maps in the Web Viewer Tool. including YouTube links, on another layout, where I have provided a feature for not only allowing the end user to store their own links to YouTube videos but also intend to pre-populate the App with links pertinent to the App's purpose. The videos would play within the app once selected. No attempt has been made to hide the fact within the App that Google and YouTube content is being used. I have searched this forum, the internet and some of Apple's and Filemaker's documentation but cannot find any clear statement as to whether such proposed usage is permissible, especially when deploying as an App Store App. The content itself (the images searched for or the videos linked to) is not embedded in the App. Also, would permission necessarily need to be sought from the creators of the pre-populated linked videos? I would appreciate any advice or reference to documentation which would help to clarify the legality of these matters.

Thanks for your reply, and apologies for the ambiguity and hope I don't add further to the confusion with my reply. As I understand it, to be a member of the Filemaker Business Alliance, one needs to have a business track record in FM development for at least two years. Although I have many decades under my belt as far as FM solution development is concerned, I have never sold any of my solutions since I deploy them in my area of influence within my own institution as added value, in addition to my principal role which has nothing at all to do with IT. It occurred to me that, as app developers (on competitor platforms) perhaps move away from Native Apps to PWAs, that this may take away some of the edge that FM enjoys through its FMGo App which as we know allows, together with FMPro, for rapid development of what could be construed as virtual Apps on IOS, thereby attracting users to IOS. In other words, if PWAs offer another route for software developers, other than FM developers, to perhaps even more easily create custom apps as opposed to building native apps on other platforms (I believe IOS is not yet fully compatible to run PWAs, despite being proposed by the late Steve Jobs a few years back, but that may change), then that may undermine the drawcard that FM represents to users towards the IOS platform. I am assuming here, hopefully correctly, that PWAs offer faster development times compared to native Apps. It is worth saying that I am perhaps one of the most ardent supporters of Apple and Filemaker and have been since before the Apple-sans-Jobs days. I am also not looking for FMGo to be released for other platforms (a veritable pipe dream) but thought that by FM/Apple making it easier for, let's call them casual but experienced, FM developers, as opposed to those whose business it is to sell FM solutions, to market solutions for IOS, that would answer a lot of appeals for the same that I have seen on FM forums such as this one. Although there are some very professional FM solutions on the FBA site, there are also some pretty basic ones. If Apple sees in FM the ability to enhance sales of iPhones to the business or other professional arenas through custom built 'Apps', then it would make sense to increase the pool of available FM solutions on IOS by giving developers a platform to showcase their solutions. By screening solutions that are proffered, quality 'could' be ensured. So, In short response to your points: - If FBA does not primarily represent a site for solution sales, wouldn't it be prudent for FM to consider establishing one? - FMGo for Android: No this does not make sense. - PWA tools in FM, No, I can't see how that would be advantageous to Apple, at least not while PWAs cannot be launched on IOS. Lastly, I know this argument is analogous to a stuck record (vinyl mind, not a FM one) but I thought the PWA argument represented a new age slant that was worth considering. Again, thanks for your answer, much appreciated!

I must state upfront that this is not a technical question and has certainly been asked within other contexts but which is one which I feel represents an ever larger elephant in the room. Although it may be early days, Progressive Web Applications, as opposed to native mobile Apps, seem to be looming on the not too distant horizon (see the post on Medium entitled "Native Apps are Doomed" by Eric Elliott). Is this not reason enough for Filemaker to become less stringent with respect to promoting the sale of FM solutions other than via their Business Alliance? I have been an FM developer since the Claris days and, although I don't do this for a living, I have established both clinical and research solutions in my field, including for FMGo, and I am not shy to say that I believe my skills are more than pretty good. Apart from this though, I have developed some really good solutions outside of this field which I know to be novel, packed with features that rely on Camera, GPS, Barcode Scanner and App Extensions to produce single 'App' solutions which are highly polished. Part of their value is my experience in the actual areas of use, which I feel is essential for producing excellent solutions. Such FM solutions would be difficult to replicate as native Apps and yet could attract a significant number of users worldwide. However, as I am not in the business, joining the FMBA is not possible and leaves only the option of setting up my own site (which is not impossible for me). However, in the greater picture, this is a messy solution if each freelance developer would do likewise. Surely an Apple/FM controlled site, where solutions are vetted to provide sufficient control over quality, would promote the IOS/FM platform especially now, before PWAs give Android a push that may prove highly competitive to the IOS based marketplace? I realise the question has been asked before, but the times, they are a changin'.

Anyone know if other features may be included in the Insert from Device script step in future releases of FMP and supported by FMGo so that other sensors could be interrogated, for example the barometer on iPhone 6/7/6+/7+? For now though, is there perhaps an ingenious workaround to access this data?

Yes, after using the camera, barcode recognition no longer triggers unless one quits the app. Since my solution typically leads to the camera being subsequently used to insert an image of the product in the related record created with the barcode scan, the bug is critical to its success. Great that the bug has been logged by others. Thanks for the heads up!

I developed a solution which utilises the barcode reader function. This worked perfectly in FMGo 14 on an iPhone 6 Plus. I upgraded to FMGo 15 but at the same time made a few programming changes, although not to the script containing the 'Insert from Device function'. On activating the script, the camera would activate and the barcode would be read successfully but, on a later occasion, the camera would activate, but not trigger on the same barcode as before and the camera would remain in scan mode unless cancelled. Thinking this was due to the changes I made, I spent hours trying to overcome the problem. Eventually, I deleted FMGo 15 and downloaded it again. It worked. However, the problem resurfaced. When it does, quitting the app restores the functionality. The 'Insert from Device' step I have scripted writes to a global field which I have placed off the layout. Again, sometimes it works, other times not, even when activated from the same layout using the same script. Could this be a bug in FMGo 15? Also, sometimes when clicking on an image in a container field, instead of going to the app extensions, FMGo 15 quits. Relaunching, on the same layout and photo, it works as expected. Again a bug?

I guess the App extensions addition to FMGo 15 accommodates saving to the Photos app, as well as direct sharing to FB/Pinterest/Twitter etc., although still not scriptable.