rogue layout clean-up?

[innodes]

Is there any type of tool that can identify whether or not a layout is in use? I need to clean up the database and would like to remove unused layouts but not break anything in the process. The DDR provides this type of information for scripts (used in layout, used in script), but not for layouts. Is there an easier way to do this than digging though the database piece by piece?

[David Jondreau]

FMNexus has a product called Inspector that I find invaluable in situations like this.

[innodes]

I was able to find that tool, and it does look great, but our budget cannot foot $400 right now. Is there any way to do this other than just painfully digging? Does anyone have any tips or tricks?

[Vaughan]

The data report in FMP Advanced is a good start. It will list what scripts the layout is used in, amongst other things.

[innodes]

Yes, thanks. I have used that tool and it was a huge help for cleaning out the scripts. I just wish it also identified the layouts in a similar way, ie, where used and where referenced. I was hoping there was either a technique or something out there to do that as well.

[David Jondreau]

You must not have dug around too much. There is a free version called Inspector Lite.

[innodes]

uh . . . humbled, and thank you.

[innodes]

OK, I dug deeper for lite, and found a web page.

http://fmnexus.com/InspectorLite.html

The download link sends you back to the Inspector page. The only thing that looks free is the "demo". It is full, and only 14days live. There is no Lite version mentioned. Do you have a link?

[LaRetta]

Well, I found a link InspectorLite and it brings up a webpage. But when I click on the link 'download InspectorLite', it drops me on the FileMaker website which lists solutions. And I can't find it there at all.

All I can find on the FMNexus website is Inspector2 which isn't free.

[innodes]

I just got the official skinny from fmnexus that it is no longer available. If it is legal, does anyone have an old copy they'd be willing to share?

I probably shouldn't have asked that, eh?

but . . .