Ender Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Wow, I take a few days off, and somebody let Harry in. What's up with that? You all should know better. Poor Kevin's gonna come away thinkin' database development is just a bunch of fun and games. Trust me Kevin: Don't believe anything Harry tells you. It's all fiction. Except when he says something like "Ender is right," he's usually right about that. While I appreciate the "accolades", the recipe I supplied is just what I could gleam from Colleen and Wendy, the original Separation Model mavens. They were doing Separation Model back before FM7, when it was really convoluted. Whew, all these big words are giving me a headache. Now I gotta go look up "ameliorated"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Lol, aight, that's my word for the day: ameliorated = "to make better".. i think lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenton Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Sorry, I didn't mean to obfuscate the issue :-] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryGlos Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 I've got to tell you the truth... You guys just have me flummoxed. : Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 ... I ... am a banana! (thought i'd add a little maturity to this topic ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igotit Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 Hi guys, I thought you may be interested in Harry’s new post on the Café called “The Deadbeats Spoke & Harry listened!” I think you’d enjoy it, It’s his same brand of zany! Here’s the link. http://www.filemakertoday.com/com/showthread.php?t=13239 Milo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 Lol, It's nice, but what surprises me is the amount of features he managed to shove on the one layout and still keep it looking decent!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igotit Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Hi Everyone, I sure hope you can help me with this. I've converted a single file solution into SM and everything is working fine except this and its a biggy. I have an Invoice, Products & Line Items relationships. In the products file each product can have up to 6 different prices based on 6 different volume levels of Direct Delivery. The FOB field and Warehouse field each have one price only. When the New Order button is clicked on the Invoice the first place you go is the Order Type field where you select either Direct, FOB or Warehouse. You cannot enter an order until one is selected. Direct, FOB or Warehouse is the trigger in the calculation to pull the right prices. You start entering products into the Line Items portal on the Invoice. FOB and Warehouse have only one price per product regardless of the volume ordered. But as I said above there are up to 6 different price points based on a DIRECT shipment order and the price you pay for each product is based on the volume of the total order. In my single file solution this works perfectly. When I converted it to SM it doesn't and I can't figure out way. The relationships are the same, everything I know to check is the same. But it's not working. I can't even figure out where the prices are comming from. One of the products I just entered into the Line Items portal on the Invoice layout shows a case price of $22.40 but when I look on the product screen for that product there is not a $22.40 case price even shown for that product. I don't know what else to do or where else to look because as I said, it works perfectly on my single file solution. Can you give me some idea where to look? Thanks guys, I really need your help with this. Milo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryGlos Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 (edited) Hey Milo, I think you most likely have more of a relation issue than you do a Separation Model issue. The first thing I’d do is check your calculations and make sure they are pointing in the right direction. Look under Specify Calculation in your calc fields and make sure that the [color:blue]“Evaluate this calculation from the context of: is pointing where it should. Also make sure that the table is properly set above the field selection window. The second place I’d look are the field lookups, make sure they are pulling from the right places. I doubt that lookups are causing the problem, these are generally not break points in conversion. But as I said, I doubt from what you’ve explained that the problem has to do with SM. You’ve had to go through quite a few steps to convert and I have a feeling somewhere something went array. That’s the opposite of awheat or asourdough! Hope this helps, let us know… Harry Edited July 26, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igotit Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Hi Harry, “Evaluate this calculation from the context of:" is it pointing where it should. Also make sure that the table is properly set above the field selection window. That's it. I'm ashamed to say I didn't even know the Evaluate was even there. So much for brain power. Thanks so much for the help. Milo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrulySimple Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 No, it's not at all like FileMaker 6 structure.* In 6 each file contained its own data, shown on its own layouts. Any data from another file had to be shown in portals (or as a single instance). To view another file's data in a list, and work with it as local, you had to go to the other file. If you look at the file I uploaded you'll see that the data "shows" on regular layouts as regular fields in BOTH files. It is editable, searchable, etc.. as if it was local to that file. But there is NO table at all in that Interface file (there could be, and likely would be, for globals/constants at least, but for this simplest example there is not). When you go to the Relationship Graph in the Interface file, you will create and work with table occurrences of the DATA file just as if you were in the DATA file itself. In my example, a DATA file TO is the only TO on the graph in the Interface file. Same with Scripts. About the only time you really notice that you're in the Interface file is when you go into Define Database, then look at Tables or Fields. Sometimes you do this by mistake; "Duh, they're in the other file!". It's that transparent. Table occurrences are based on File References. These can be from any FileMaker file available in your environment. You can create a table occurrence then a layout based on it. The data is then available as local. It is NOT related data. It's a difficult concept when you're used to thinking in FileMaker 6 paradigm. But it's so much more convenient. It makes complex inter-table scripting so much easier. *Actually, perhaps I've gone off on a rant (it happens <img src='http://fmforums.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':' />-). You're right, it is similar to 6, the concept that you can open (hidden) and interact with another file by creating a relationship to it (which created a File Reference, but it was not visible). I'm sure that was quite a (welcome) surprise to the FileMaker 2 folks. But it's way beyond that. Hey Fenton, I have been working on converting a group of solutions into one separation model. I have one portion pretty much done, although I do have a fair number of calculations in the data file as well as globals some for exploded string keys for dynamic portals and such. I wanted to eliminate as many calculation as possible from the data file, then I noticed in this post you mentioned putting globals in the UI. Can you explain a little about this. At this point I do not have a single field in the UI. Also really wondering about adding in the next group of tables into this solution as they are heavy with calculation fields and the thought of scripting 100 calculations is very daunting. Where do you draw the line ( if you draw a line ) on calculations in the Data file? Though this part is really the meat of this project It almost makes me want to drop separation altogether or just go ahead and keep basic calculations in the data file. The reason I want to set this up as a separation model is It will be a new release of a "shrink wrap" product that I would like to simplify the upgrade process as new versions and features are added to the UI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryGlos Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Hey Truly, You may want to check out http://filemakertoday.com/com/showthread.php/28185-The-quot-Separation-Model-quot-Matt-Petrowsky-of-FileMaker-Magazine-and-Me! We are discussing the separation model and you may find some things of interest. Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrulySimple Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Hey Truly, You may want to check out http://filemakertoday.com/com/showthread.php/28185-The-quot-Separation-Model-quot-Matt-Petrowsky-of-FileMaker-Magazine-and-Me! We are discussing the separation model and you may find some things of interest. Harry Thanks Harry. I will check it out. Oh, yes I have read much of this. Liked some of the videos that were free. Not sure if i want to subscribe to see the rest. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
This topic is 4754 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now