Global Fields No Longer Function Properly

[stealth162]

I have a database that I originally designed to just be used on one computer (stand alone). I have since found it more useful to put it online using filemaker server. The problems is that the fields that are in the database that are defined as global no longer work properly. To my understanding it is because the globals are linked to a user in some way, so when someone else logs in they do not see them in the same manner. How do I fix these fields so that they function in the same way when the database is not published online?

[stealth162]

I have a database that I originally designed to just be used on one computer (stand alone). I have since found it more useful to put it online using filemaker server. The problems is that the fields that are in the database that are defined as global no longer work properly. To my understanding it is because the globals are linked to a user in some way, so when someone else logs in they do not see them in the same manner. How do I fix these fields so that they function in the same way when the database is not published online?

[stealth162]

I have a database that I originally designed to just be used on one computer (stand alone). I have since found it more useful to put it online using filemaker server. The problems is that the fields that are in the database that are defined as global no longer work properly. To my understanding it is because the globals are linked to a user in some way, so when someone else logs in they do not see them in the same manner. How do I fix these fields so that they function in the same way when the database is not published online?

[Søren Dyhr]

To my understanding it is because the globals are linked to a user in some way

The've always been behaving like that!! But with previous versions was a realtion between a constant in both files required to make data common in a SHARED non evaporating way. Today is it the X relation between arbitrary fields in two TO's that can endure been indexed - that makes the linking!

--sd

[Søren Dyhr]

To my understanding it is because the globals are linked to a user in some way

The've always been behaving like that!! But with previous versions was a realtion between a constant in both files required to make data common in a SHARED non evaporating way. Today is it the X relation between arbitrary fields in two TO's that can endure been indexed - that makes the linking!

--sd

[Søren Dyhr]

To my understanding it is because the globals are linked to a user in some way

The've always been behaving like that!! But with previous versions was a realtion between a constant in both files required to make data common in a SHARED non evaporating way. Today is it the X relation between arbitrary fields in two TO's that can endure been indexed - that makes the linking!

--sd

[stealth162]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Excuse me if I appear ignorrant. I'm looking for a solution more than a explanation. I appreciate any help, but you need to be more detailed and specific.

[stealth162]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Excuse me if I appear ignorrant. I'm looking for a solution more than a explanation. I appreciate any help, but you need to be more detailed and specific.

[stealth162]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Excuse me if I appear ignorrant. I'm looking for a solution more than a explanation. I appreciate any help, but you need to be more detailed and specific.

[Søren Dyhr]

'm looking for a solution more than a explanation.

It was a solution, stop using globals and turn to a related record for common global'ish data. This is what the X (cartesian product) relation can be used for.

Are you familiar with the generation of several tables, and how to relate data between fields??

--sd

[Søren Dyhr]

'm looking for a solution more than a explanation.

It was a solution, stop using globals and turn to a related record for common global'ish data. This is what the X (cartesian product) relation can be used for.

Are you familiar with the generation of several tables, and how to relate data between fields??

--sd

[Søren Dyhr]

'm looking for a solution more than a explanation.

It was a solution, stop using globals and turn to a related record for common global'ish data. This is what the X (cartesian product) relation can be used for.

Are you familiar with the generation of several tables, and how to relate data between fields??

--sd

[Martin Brändle]

From the FileMaker Help manual on global fields:

If your file is shared, only the host's changes to global field data are saved.

i.e. all your user client changes to a global field are only valid as long as the client is connected to the server.

One idea would be to create a user table where user-specific parameters can be saved.

[Martin Brändle]

From the FileMaker Help manual on global fields:

If your file is shared, only the host's changes to global field data are saved.

i.e. all your user client changes to a global field are only valid as long as the client is connected to the server.

One idea would be to create a user table where user-specific parameters can be saved.

[Martin Brändle]

From the FileMaker Help manual on global fields:

If your file is shared, only the host's changes to global field data are saved.

i.e. all your user client changes to a global field are only valid as long as the client is connected to the server.

One idea would be to create a user table where user-specific parameters can be saved.

[Steve T.]

Howdy, s! As you've discovered and as folks have mentioned, yes globals are user-specific so we just make changes to globals directly on the host computer whenever needed. Web publishing should be the same, too, i.e. make changes on the host. If you did not want to use globals, you could probably use calculation fields and set them equal to constant values for all records. If you WANT user-specific values, then I'd go w/MB's user table idea.

--ST

[stealth162]

Thanks for your reply Steve. I think what you are talking about with a calculation filed and set equal to constant values is on track. Basically I need to assign a number (version) which would be user enterable and assign it to a predetermined set of records. Not sure how to do what your talking about but, it seems on track. Any help is much appreciated.

[stealth162]

The versions that are entered need not be user specific.

[Steve T.]

Howdy, s! Sorry... no, I meant if you needed fixed values you could use calculations set to constant values. If users will enter/change information for sets of records, you should probably look at the REPLACE CONTENTS command under the RECORDS menu. Since your users are connecting via FileMaker, you can make a script and attach it to a button if you like. Just avoid using scripts for web solutions unless FM has approved them for web use.

Or you can modify MB's user table idea with just 1 record that has values that will appear or be applied to all records in the related db/table instead of just a particular user's.

--ST

[stealth162]

Well, I appreciate the advice offered so far. I still haven't been able to fix my problem. Most likely I am just too much of a novice. Wondering if anyone might have the time to either look at my database or expalin to me in laymens terms how to fix this global trouble I'm having. Probably a simple fix once you see it. Help? If someone is willing to take a look please send me a message with your email. I'd rather email the file than post it on the db for all.