using unsupported scripts in web publishing

[ibiubu]

Filemaker provides a list of supported scripts that can be used in web publishing. Is there any way, such as a plug-in, to allow additional script steps to be used in a filemaker database that are not in the supported list of web scripts?

LR

[Keith M. Davie]

First, what do they mean "supported"? Does this mean they have done rigorous testing in a multi-user environment and these scripts cannot be compromised in such an environment? I relly don't know.

Second, the claim of "support" is made for IWP. I don't know that the claim of "support" is made for CWP.

I have no idea how you would contact FMI to get an answer as to what their claim of "support" includes.

Take for instance this quote about the -script from the "Developer's Guide" in the appendix for xml, "Specifies the FileMaker Pro script that will be performed...". To my mind that claim ("will be performed") leaves no doubt that any and all performable scripts will be performed when the client invokes this tag as part of the action and in no way will that script be compromised because it is the second or third request to be made in a near-simulatneous manner. To my mind that means that FMI did rigorous testing of this tag in a multi-user environment in such a manner that near-simultaneous requests were made upon the ScriptMaker engine.

I would also point out to you that when I presented FMI with the problem (Case No 2235305) of scripts run in cdml in an environment which allows for near-simultaneous requests on the ScriptMaker engine, I also had to provide them with the manner of testing. This case was presented to FMI subsequent to the publication of the "Developer's Guide" which makes the above claim. I leave it to you to determine the veracity of FileMaker's claims.

As far as I know, there are no plug-ins such as you request. As far as I know, I am the first person in the world to have developed a workaround to the problem as it exists in CWP. I doubt there will be any plug-ins since the solution of which I am aware is complex and must be addressed in the design of the databases and the scripts in combination with each other as well as in the format files, and are unique to each solution.

I've done it. It took a LOT of time and energy. You can reinvent the wheel; buy my solution and redesign it to you needs; or not use ScriptMaker in your solutions.

It is good to have choices.

[Vaughan]

He means supported in Instant Web Publishing... putting a button on a layout and having that rendered on the web page and functioning.

[Keith M. Davie]

Thanks Vaughan, I did not know that "support" means allowing a button which functions (i.e. invokes a ScriptMaker event) to be put on a web page.

I gather from your answer that FileMaker does not provide support for the ScriptMaker event attached to that button to function for all parties should near-simultaneous requests for ScriptMaker events occur.

Oh well, I suppose that is still another reason to not use IWP.

[Vaughan]

My understanding is that FM Inc's aim for IWP is to recreate your FMP Layout as a web page with all functionality -- so if you have a button on the layout that (say) performs a find and changes layout, the web rendering will do exactly the same.

Some thought will reveal that there are script seps that cannot be done through the web (like Enter Browse Mode) because the browser enviromnet does not have the equivilent function. There are others that might be possible but are technically very difficult or unreiable, and there are probably some that could be done but don't make ecconomic sense.

For these reasons the lst of supported script steps through IWP is basic and possible megre, but to be quite honest I think it's a pretty amazing the job the IWP programming folks have done getting *anything* to work as well as it does.

[Keith M. Davie]

> I think it's a pretty amazing the job the IWP programming folks have done >getting *anything* to work as well as it does.

Yes Vaughan, I agree.

Considering everything, IWP is pretty amazing itself.

The script step Go To Layout is much like the tags in html/cdml -format="xxx.htm", -error="yyy.htm", but (not having direct experience) I surmise that instead of an "error" layout, FM handles an "error" (e.g. 401) with one of their stylish pop-up windows.

[Anatoli]

RE: with one of their stylish pop-up windows.