Jump to content

human

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About human

  • Rank
    newbie
  • Birthday November 8

Profile Information

  • Title
    C.T.O.
  • Industry
    music
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Woodstock, NY

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.humanworldwide.com

FileMaker Experience

  • Skill Level
    Intermediate
  • FM Application
    19

Platform Environment

  • OS Platform
    Mac
  • OS Version
    10.15

FileMaker Partner

  • Certification
    Not Certified
  1. Claris says this is a known issue. Seems like it's fixed in FMP 19.2.1, but I haven't tested with older server versions
  2. I have a global container field that I want to display a PDF in interactive mode, so that one can scroll through a multi-page document. Works when the file is local, but gives an error when hosted on FM Server 19 on Mac 10.14, with the client being FM 19.2.1 on OS 10.14 or 10.15. Works if I change it to non-interactive. Googling around, the answer is supposed to be that the server needs a valid SSL cert, needs port 443 open, and needs web publishing running. But all these conditions have been met, doesn't help. The error is always something lime this: Proxy GET /Proxy/98B041CA3B
  3. count works, thanks! However, on a local file this is fast. But when connected to a remote server, trying to sort on that field is extremely slow, because there are over 400K entries in the join table.
  4. I have a database with 3 tables (to simplify): keywords (keyword_text and keyword_ID), files (filename text and file_ID) and a join table (keyword_ID, file_ID). Suppose I want to have a list view that shows all filenames with their associated count of keywords attached to each file, and conversely another list view with all keywords and their associated count of files attached to each keyword. How would I go about doing that?
  5. I'll try this. However, not sure what you mean by "Note: this sound plays without user controls, and plays asynchronously.". The whole reason for me to want it in a web viewer is because the default HTML5 controls work better than FM's "interactive" container controls. For example, if you turn on autoplay in FM's version, there is no way to stop it that I have found, even if you overwrite the container with "". In the HTML5 version, autoplay works great and the track stops playing as soon as i set the global field that holds the URL to "". Thanks.
  6. I went back and revisited this and now I am pretty confused, because, even with full disk access enabled, I can't get the web viewer to play the audio either from my documents or desktop folder. If I paste the address "file:///Users/jim/Documents/000001.m4a" into Safari it plays in Safari, but won't play in the web viewer with this code: "data:text/html, <body style='border=0;overflow:hidden'> <body topmargin=0> <body leftmargin=0> <audio controls preload='none' style='width:480px;'> <source src=file:///Users/jim/Documents/000001.m4a type='audio/mp4'> <p
  7. this works: file:///Users/jim/Documents/TempTracks/UNSOLD_aac/000/000001.m4a but this does not, gives an error: file:///Users/jim/Desktop/TempTracks/UNSOLD_aac/000/000001.m4a I also tried movie:/// and filemac:///, neither work So I assume that the web viewer can only access files in documents or temporary folders? Is this documented anywhere?
  8. I have a solution that is a catalogue of audio files. The actual audio files exist on a web server, and I play them in a web viewer. However the user can alternatively play them from a local folder if he has a copy of that, and that is done by copying a reference to that local file into an interactive container field. This works fine, however the web viewer player looks better - it has fast forward by 30 seconds and back by 15 seconds buttons, and a time display on the progress bar, while the interactive container does not. I read somewhere that I should be able to play the local file in
  9. I finished recoding it and it works great. Thanks all!
  10. I will probably re-code to use extended/constrained finds, for two reasons: - executeSQL works great on a local DB, and on a server to client except for the first time it's run, which can take 20-30 seconds. After that it's fine, but that initial delay is annoying. I've Googled around and can't find a solution to that. - using a portal to display the data has it's down sides: - need a different portal for each different sort order, because you can't sort by calculation. I have 8 columns to sort up or down, so I need 16 copies of the same portal. - "Find" mode inside a por
  11. In the first one I was describing the "and" process in order to show that for each iteration of the loop there is an executeSQL statement, and I thought that was what was slowing it down. But it turns out that simply changing the order of the related tables resulted in a big speed-up. As far as I can see, there would be no way to use a constrained find, because the keywords and their ID's are not in the same table as the other track info. They are only related through the fileID-keywordID table, so that requires a lookup, which I am doing with the executeSQL statement. But maybe I am wro
  12. as per the link your referenced, using an unstored Get(FoundCount) field is way faster that using a summary count field. Thanks!
  13. Well it's not simple, that's for sure. The relationship between the main file and the fileID-keywordID file is through the fileID. There is a global fileID field in the main file. By populating that with a carriage return delimited list of fileID's (the "magic key"), the portal shows all of the file ID's in that list (I use the "UniqueValues" function to eliminate duplicates). For the "any" search: Each time to user selects another keyword from a pop-down list, I set a variable to executeSQL "select fileID from fileID-keywordID where kwdID = ?". That returns a list of fileID's which cont
  14. Actually I discovered that just changing the order of the relationships and avoiding "daisy chaining" them fixed the issue, and it's now fast enough. However I have a summary field on the portal because i want a count of the records in the portal, and that seems to be very slow to calculate each time.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.