artypants

FileMaker 7 Developer crashes intermittently on both Mac OS X 3.9 and on Win XP SP2. I have been anoyed by the fact that all development is lost since the last disk save. But today I decided to run the recover tool on the file to ensure there wasn't any corruption being introduced. FileMaker crashed during the recover operation. Now the ORIGINAL file is corrupt beyond repair. It now asks for password when there is no password. I spent $45 on a service call to FileMaker and all they could say was that for $100 per table, they would look into it. My solution has 9 tables and I'm putting this thing together for a non-profit at $50 an hour. I should have gone PHP/MySQL.

no. it just means that you must be the only user of the file to add fields. If it is a shared database, ask others to close their open file. If you are the only user, there is another possible problem, but I can't remember it off hand.

The only solution I've been able to come up with to open multiple files is to store only a reference in the container field and then have a scriptmaker Perform AppleScript step that does this: // tell finder to open an alias of the file using the default application "tell app "Finder"

The only solution I've been able to come up with to open multiple files is to store only a reference in the container field and then have a scriptmaker Perform AppleScript step that does this: // tell finder to open an alias of the file using the default application "tell app "Finder"

you just need the find operator "=" in front of your find phrase like: "=find this exact phrase"

you just need the find operator "=" in front of your find phrase like: "=find this exact phrase"

These are intriguing comments but there is more to it than one versus two versus three layers. FileMaker is great for rapid development. When you start adding layers I cannot see why this is any better than developing your tool in another platform where the database and code are naturally seperate. SQL upgrades to the table structure are done without affecting the data and compiled code is upgraded without affecting the data at all, too. Clean and simple. So, it seems to me that the only reason to do the three table thing is really that FileMaker is your safety zone. Not that I feel real comfortable with MySQL and Java, yet. But that seems to be the more logical way to develop a commercial tool. Are there advantages to FileMaker compared to more traditional development platforms other than it is my comfort zone?

These are intriguing comments but there is more to it than one versus two versus three layers. FileMaker is great for rapid development. When you start adding layers I cannot see why this is any better than developing your tool in another platform where the database and code are naturally seperate. SQL upgrades to the table structure are done without affecting the data and compiled code is upgraded without affecting the data at all, too. Clean and simple. So, it seems to me that the only reason to do the three table thing is really that FileMaker is your safety zone. Not that I feel real comfortable with MySQL and Java, yet. But that seems to be the more logical way to develop a commercial tool. Are there advantages to FileMaker compared to more traditional development platforms other than it is my comfort zone?

These are intriguing comments but there is more to it than one versus two versus three layers. FileMaker is great for rapid development. When you start adding layers I cannot see why this is any better than developing your tool in another platform where the database and code are naturally seperate. SQL upgrades to the table structure are done without affecting the data and compiled code is upgraded without affecting the data at all, too. Clean and simple. So, it seems to me that the only reason to do the three table thing is really that FileMaker is your safety zone. Not that I feel real comfortable with MySQL and Java, yet. But that seems to be the more logical way to develop a commercial tool. Are there advantages to FileMaker compared to more traditional development platforms other than it is my comfort zone?

Nice that this works for you. This double-click option does not work on a Mac. I am looking around the forum for some help like this on a Mac but it looks like some very serious applescript (MAC OS) code.

Nice that this works for you. This double-click option does not work on a Mac. I am looking around the forum for some help like this on a Mac but it looks like some very serious applescript (MAC OS) code.

Nice that this works for you. This double-click option does not work on a Mac. I am looking around the forum for some help like this on a Mac but it looks like some very serious applescript (MAC OS) code.

I, too, am looking for a solution that works when the container contains the file. The "Go to field" script step does not work on a mac and the applescript thing does not work if the file name needs to change (ie, if you want multiple word docs open at once it gives an error at file #2). Is there a way to export the field with a calculated file name and send an applescript command to MS Word to open up the specific file?

I, too, am looking for a solution that works when the container contains the file. The "Go to field" script step does not work on a mac and the applescript thing does not work if the file name needs to change (ie, if you want multiple word docs open at once it gives an error at file #2). Is there a way to export the field with a calculated file name and send an applescript command to MS Word to open up the specific file?

I, too, am looking for a solution that works when the container contains the file. The "Go to field" script step does not work on a mac and the applescript thing does not work if the file name needs to change (ie, if you want multiple word docs open at once it gives an error at file #2). Is there a way to export the field with a calculated file name and send an applescript command to MS Word to open up the specific file?