IWP and AJAX

[DavidSan]

I have been using IWP for a long time and in most situations it is very convenient. However, I do not understand why it is so difficult for FileMaker to implement an IWP that uses at least some AJAX technologies. For example, not reloading the whole page (All layout) every time a modification is submitted, or some way to notify the user the database has been changed by another user.

Does anyone know if it is possible to see FM to create a better IWP or is it impossible? Is this the best they can do? (I have not seen many real differences in IWP for a very long time and it really feels old)

[Wim Decorte]

Strange question...

I guess you'd need to apply for a job as a programmer at FMI to find out.

What you're asking for is possible and you can do it yourself. FMI supports all the standards required to roll your own beautiful AJAX interface. That way, you have complete control over the end result. Whereas if you wait for FMI:

- you don't know how long you'll wait (or even if it's important enough for them to actually do what you have in mind)

- the end result will always be a compromise that FMI thinks will please the most people. Which may or may not include you.

Bottom line: you can do it.

[DavidSan]

Strange question...

I guess you'd need to apply for a job as a programmer at FMI to find out.

What you're asking for is possible and you can do it yourself. FMI supports all the standards required to roll your own beautiful AJAX interface. That way, you have complete control over the end result. Whereas if you wait for FMI:

- you don't know how long you'll wait (or even if it's important enough for them to actually do what you have in mind)

- the end result will always be a compromise that FMI thinks will please the most people. Which may or may not include you.

Bottom line: you can do it.

Thank you for your answer.

Yes, I know I can code the interface I am asking for (So FM Programmers can too). However, the reason why so many people buy FM licenses is because they want something "already working" or "easy to get working" and save costs in delivery and deployment.

What you are telling me is basically to use FM as a "common database" and code the interface by myself, which is what most programmers do using MySQL (for example) and Dreamweaver. If I have to code the interface by myself, then the FM benefit pretty much erodes itself. I have heard the argument before:

- Why use FM in the first place and pay for licenses? Use MySQL or Postgre instead. Anyway, you will have to program everything. This IWP is very unresponsive, it's so 90's.

Coding such interface by myself would increase the development hours I charge to my employers. It increases the time the information system is delivered and deployed. It could lead to bugs. Basically, it makes "Filemaker Server Advanced" and its 3000 dollars tag , pointless for new systems.

But if IWP provided a better interface then selling new custom systems made in FM would be much easier. Especially because it would be faster to do the development and it would save money.