Container Field on related table on 2nd DB does not work

[jrie818]

2nd Post. This website is awesome.

Anyway, I have 2 DB using IWP. Same User & Access privileges on both DB.

DB1 (Main System) contains 2 Tables. TB1 and TB2. TB1 1toMany TB2

DB2 (PDF Files) contains 1 Table. TB1 1to1 DB1 TB2.

On my Layout1 (DB1 TB1) I'm showing fields from DB1 TB1, a portal of DB1 TB2 with it's fields and 1 container field from DB2 TB1.

On the Firefox or IE browser, everything is displayed correctly. I can even see the filename of container field on DB2 TB1. But when I tried to click it, the browser opens up a new tab and returns a blank page. Confused, I tried to add a new container field on DB1 TB2 and loaded a pdf file just to see if it will work. And it did work. When I click the container field, Acrobat loads and opens the pdf file. So basically, it will only work when the field is within the table within the current DB1 but not when it's in another DB (DB2).

So my questions is.. Is this a Filemaker limitation? Is there a way around this without using a plugin?

Thanks in advance..

Edited November 13, 2008 by Guest

[jrie818]

I figured it out. But since I'm still a Novice may I ask some developers to confirm what I just learned.

I think that it is a Filemaker IWP limitation. The pdf on the container field on DB2 TB1 would display on the portal but when you click it it doesn't do anything. It's because the portal is linked to the DB1 TB2 not the DB2 TB1. When I changed the portal to link to DB2 TB1 voila! it worked. In other words if you're going to make the contents of a container field that resides on a different database available for download on IWP make sure that the portal is linked to the other database/table. Don't rely on the relationship between them because it won't work. The contents filename would display but it won't let you download.

I hope I didn't confuse you guys with my "DB1 TB1" way of naming the Database and Tables. Thanks

[DiscoPete]

I had the same problem and found that changing the relationship from one-one to one-many solved the problem. I have no idea why and it was a pain to solve. Thanks for your hints