So, almost every serious FileMaker developer had some sort of standard for naming fields, relationships, etc. I personally started using CoreSolutions standards (http://coresolutions.ca/Resources/standards.lasso). I found that CoreSolutions' standards very helpful in my projects.

Now with FileMaker 7, most of these standards are out the door. We need to come up with some standards for the new era.

I've started on my own, primary standards to get the ball rolling. I'm hoping many of you will have some input on this subject.

Relationship naming:

--

New syntax could be something like this

table name 1-[match field 1]#(table name 2)-[field name 2]|[kind{.kind}]/[purpose]

table name 1 & 2: Every relation has two tables involved, table name 1 and table name 2.

match field 1 & 2:If the relationship is a simple ID to ID with only one clause, with the vast majority of relations will likely be, then the two match fields.

kind: if the relation uses greater than, less that etc. then indicate in the kind, using a notation something like this. g = greater than, l = less than, n = not equal too, ge = greater than or equal too, etc. IF more then one, seperate with periods.

purpose: if the relation is too complex to describe in the name. Use brief description of the purpose. e.g., for a relation of all records within a date range that have a field flags for complete. the purpose could read 'complete in range.'

Field Naming

--

Since there will be a huge cut down in the number of fields needed. The field prefixes could be simplified or eliminated.

My only thoughts right now on this would be to have fields not indened for display, ie a calculation be prefixed with 'z.' and keep them sorted. I need to use FileMaker 7 more before a really get into this one.

I've started a web page for this for the time being, at <http://falkaholic.net/filemaker/>, I hope to keep this up to date with what we decide until someone else takes over.

So please, lets discuss!

Version: v7.x

How or where are you naming this relationship?

I presume it is the Table Occurrence name.

I found the Core Solutions standards to be very helpful. I've been able to go to solutions I havent' worked on in a year or more and be able to jump right in without too much time spent finguring out what the hell I had done.

To me, the most urgent need for a naming convention is around the relationships.

Secondly, a more useful way to name and organize scripts, especially since they will all reside in the same file as opposed to spead across several files of a solution.

Field names - I'm ok with staying with the orginal Core Solutions standards althoughI agree, there will be fewer fields used to accopmplish the same solution.

I'd recommend you read the information in the soon to be released document:

Upgrading to FileMaker 7: Migration Foundations and Methodologies

found at

http://www.filemaker.com/upgrade/techbriefs.html

HTH

Steven

hi,

i've been away from FileMaker for a while and wanted to bring this topic going again. Seems like an import issue (at least to perfectionist like myself).

I've started on migrating my Aqua Templates to FM7. It's looking like a rewrite and I want to lay a good base down. Any musings anyone?