Tricky

Yep, that seems to be the reason, which makes sense in a way. But I was hoping that the behaviour would be more along the lines of the passwords: once you have a file open with master access, other files that are part of the solution are automatically opened / accessed with the same privs, without me having to key them in. But thanks for thinking along. And when I said: it fails, I meant to say: no set field happens, I get an error message that I am not authorised to set the field. Which is correct from the standpoint of the privs for the normal user, but in my perception, that was what the ticking box for running with admin privs was for... Maybe this will change in future....

Has any of you had experience with the data separation model in FMA 8.5? I have a data file with multiple tables and a file that is my user interface. It has no data of its own, all of the TOs refer to tables in the data file. From the user interface, I want to set a value in the data file. And I want to do this via a script that runs on full access privileges. However, it fails. From the security standpoint this may make sense. But how do I work around this? Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

Thanks for that info, Stephen. I have set up a server here as a test for FM8, wil have to dive into all the specifics of it yet...

Hi all, I do not have Server 8 up and running here, but what surprises me is the remark somewhere that files need to be set to multi user (sharing on) before putting them on server. This was something that was no longer required since version 6, I believe and I cannot imagine that option being dropped in 8. From the maintenance point of view, it can be a little tricky to have the files set to sharing. If, for some reason, you have to do some work on the files that requires closing them on server, I do not want the files to be on sharing. Sometimes, depending on your situation, within milliseconds users will still become an involuntary guest of the file you are changing and you will only notice this when you wanna close it. So, correct me if I am wrong, but I would much prefer to set them to single user and, in the admin console that Server provides, tick the option Allow to host single-user files. Just a remark from a practical point of view... Other than that, Veronica, I completely understand your confusion. Sometime we forget that the abbreviations and technical terms we are used to use do not make sense to somebody who is new to this issue. I have been known to ask many questions about that as well, when I started out. And, believe you me, setting up a server environment is a field of knowledge of its own! Good luck with your files and stuff!

If the file is big, performing a find can take some time. Why not create a relationship on the basis of a global that contains the concatenated entry values on one side, and the calculated concatenation of the real values in the file on the other side? If the relationship turns out to be valid, the value is not unique and a new record does not have to be created. You would be well advised to handle the data-entry with scripting, globals an variables: it gives you more control. You would have a confirm button on the data entry screen, that triggers the script. Users MUST click it to leave this screen and even if they decide to close the file instead of clicking it, nothing would be amiss, because the info would only be in the globals. In FMA8 you could make the concatenated global data entry value a script parameter instead of a field, set a global field to the value of that parameter and make sure that there is a relationship based on that global and the concatenated calculation which holds the real values. Then test IsValid.

The question is not: what does it do now, and is there a pattern or not. The question is: would there be a way to let users decide which percentage they want to have to fit their needs. I have personally always detested the weird behaviour of Filemaker where text is concerned and I know for a fact that the text-engine still has not changed much. Which is not to say that we have to accept that. I bet I am not the only one requesting this feature.

I am not sure whether this is the best subject to ask my question? A user just asked me why it is possible to use the zoom controls in 25% steps when zooming out, and only 50% steps when zooming in. I had no idea but I know it is not possible. Now, customised zooming would definitely be on my list of future features, but in the meantime: is there any tool out there, a plug-in of some kind, that could help me with that?

I will try to explain... The local file are calculations of prices for projects my company does. The server file can be described as a product component catalogue, from which the project is assembled. ad 1: what the relationships show is not the issue. What is the issue is that users pick from the choices offered in the portals and I would like for them to see their choices highlighted. ad 2: The selection/filtering is used to lead the user to a valid unique product component. There are different varieties of components, but at the end of the selection process, only one unique component remains, we zoom in on that component. Each choice filters the next one, leading, eventually to a final choice that distinguishes a unique component. ad 3: Let me try and explain duplicates. We have a product which is a conveyor belt. Its code is BF. We distinguish different types of BFs, depending on how these are used. The full string, that makes each BF unique, can look like this: Release 8.0 Industry Airport Supply chain europe Function category Conveyor Function Transport Conveyor BF Equipment type pallet Width 1000 mm Within one release, each of these paramaters can be different. The supply chain might be USA. Or the function might be Sorting. So, all of the categories exist multiple times in different varieties. And when the portal shows the varieties, there will always be duplicates, except for the very last one: width. They will always be unique in the portal, no duplicates there. I hope this makes sense. As this is a large solution there is no way I can post an example. I was merely hoping for somebody to come up with a different selection process. Or a smart idea that gets rid of the portal duplicates....

FEEL LIKE BEING CREATIVE? YOU CAN HELP ME!!! I am not sure this title covers my question, but let me give it a try. My file setup consists of a server part and a part that users have locally on their own computer, as many times as they have projects. The local file uses the data that are kept on server. When users make their selection from these data, they do so via 8 portals. Each choice filters the available choices in the next portal. I have two questions, hoping for solutions / alternatives that i am overlooking. NOTE: I do NOT use plug ins (not allowed to due to budget cuts) and I am not familiar yet with VB etc. NOTE2: there is no option to make the solution all-server-based. I have been asked my times: why not move all to server, but there are definite reasons not to want to go there. Too complicated to explain here, but it is a fact I have to live with. Here are my challenges: 1) portals do not automatically show unique values only. Value lists do, based on the same relationship, but my users do not want to work from value list pop ups. So, I have tracked down the unique records by comparing the unique record ID with the same unique record ID via a selfjoin relationship by the values that distinguish it as unique. Example: My product has a name, a category and a group. The selfjoin relationship includes all three of these. The calculation looks like this: Case ( record ID = selfjoin_relationship::record_ID; 1) So, I can now find the unique records, but: the calculation cannot be stored and thus not be used in a relationship. So, I have to have set regular number fields with the values of the calculated uniqueness identifying fields (pardon my bad English). This is a bit of a hassle, but it is acceptable, because the action only has to be done when a new release of the file is distributed. Once or twice a year. However: I would love to hear suggestions to do this in a different way. I seem to be stuck where I am now. 2)Because of the server/local setup, I find myself trapped when I want the portal that references the server file, to show highlights (colourchanges) for the user choice. If I want to do this, I need to have this file locally, because I believe that even in FMA8, Filemaker is unable to show selections for all users (300) at the same time, without locking the records the portals reference. I would hate to have to make a separate local copy of the referenced table, but if that is the only option, I will do that. What I am looking for here, is maybe totally different approaches to the matter. I will include in this message a screen shot from the portal as I have now designed it to test with. The final user interface will of course look better, but this will give you all an idea of my situation.

Windows is not very 'resize' friendly. On the Mac this is easy. Nothing much you can do about that, I believe?

SOLVED IT! I suddenly remembered that with another program updater (not Filemaker), I ran into trouble because the updater was not on the C disk. I put it there just now, and everything has been properly installed. Not sure it is the C/D disk stuffing it up, it could be that the directory containing the updater was 'too deep' in terms of the directory structure. Anyway, problem solved!

Not yet. But seems unlikely to me, as both machines are in the office and have the same set-up. Why would that be different per machine?

Done all that, Wim. No idea what causes this, particularly because I installed in the exact same manner on the laptop and it never gave me any hardship. Suggestions?

I am reposting this problem. I had no replies in the previous posting. Maybe now? FMA8 updater v2 tells me that it cannot find a file called "Filemaker pro 8 advanced.msi". I checked, it is in the same folder as the other updater stuff. I have no way of browsing and indicating it manually. What am i doing wrong? Anybody?

Okay, I hardly ever use them, let me give it a try and forget about this. After all, in the end we all love Filemaker and want to get better, amongst other things through this forum. :)

I am relatively new to this forum, as is visible via the number of posts behind my name. And although I like the exchange of information, it surprises me how sarcastic people can be sometimes. It not only surprises me, it is demeaning as well when intentions of poster are nothing but good. Well, mine are, in any case. So, I would like to suggest that personal comments about whether or somebody mistakenly posts something that was already suggested and overlooked, are entered in a private topic or simply not made. It is of no value to the topic, it looks very childish as well, like knocking on your chest because, hey, after the brilliance of your own reply, why would others duplicate your comments? Or: how stupid are the others for repeating my words? You are right, in that I saw that I did say the same things you did. I could have done a better job reading, but again: it seems very unnecessary to word your reply the way you did. If you would have added the smiles it might have looked differently. But, anyway, I like good fun, so I will choose to take it this way.

I suggest you post your files here, because it is not that simple to solve if we do not see the situation. In my humble opinion this cannot be a server issue, because it works on your computer. Or, dumb remark: is it possible that the files the data is drawn from is NOT present on server, but IS present on your local hard disk? You say that the list does not see the data. What happens? Is it simply empty? Or do you get an error?

This is true, but your remarks about the relational features of Filemaker might also be worth thinking about for Moosh.

I am not sure how this relates to FM8, but there is a barcode reader plugin that can be used with older version. It is called Peninsula FMPro Barcode Plugin. You might be able to find it by Googling it. Obviously the mobile hand held device needs to be able to run Filemaker on it...

What would be a better approach is to create separate fields for entries of Christian and Surname and use a calc for those cases where you need to show them together.

Hi Stu, Not sure when you posted but if you have a tricky problem, how can I not respond, being 'Tricky' on the list, hey? Uhm, I am unsure I understand you correctly, but it sounds to me that you are looking for a conditional value list. A list, that shows values on the basis of a relationship. So, if you would enter a limit, the rates shown in the list would only show those that apply to the carriers with that limit. Is my assumption correct?

I am trying to install the Filemaker Advanced 8 updaters to get to version 3. On my laptop it worked fine, so the files are okay, I guess. But on my desktop I get an error message about a missing .msi file. Is there something I am doing wrong? Where can I check for errors? Both machines have the exact same configuration, by the way. I am working on Windows XP, SP2.

Kate: good luck with your decisions! Someone says: it takes ages to re-design. Yes, this is true. I have been doing it and not even from one Filemaker version to the other, but from one old legacy solution (very complex) and up until now it is taking me 3 years. Still no launch. Do I regret doing that and having to redesign again in FM8? Nah. The new design has been set up with FM8 in mind (well, 7 at the time). So, the new design in FMP6 is excellent specification material for re-design in 8. Whether it is worth redesigning or upgrading to me is not a question. I believe that older solutions always have stuff in them that should be cleaned up and can be done better in FM8. Sure it takes time, but the end result, I believe, will be a lot better. If you allow yourself to get stuck in upgrading and then searching for bugs, I believe you will get confused. But, it is your decision and I am looking forward to hearing more about the process!

Hi Greg, Thanks for the compliment. Contentment it was... I have checked the lists, they hold, per line, well over 60 characters, but if this were the problem, how come nobody else on the same hosted database have the crash-problem? I will have the driver checked first. Nicky

The name checkboxes is a lie... I do not think you should use them. Instead I have made two different approaches via portal. One lets the user enter the values in the portal and that is it. In the other, the results are shown in a portal, but created through scripting. Of course this is Filemaker 6. In FM8 you would use the variables instead of the globals and also the goto related gives different results I believe. I think that if there are no related records, the found set will be 'show all'. So you will have to check via IsValid. Some other people might be able to help you with converting this to FM8. It will be a lot simpler and shorter in FM8. Have fun with this. Sorry for the delay: work work work! CheckBox.zip