Jump to content

Can a Tech Net member confirm if there is currently an "Early view of unreleased software"?


HALBURN
 Share

This topic is 2885 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Recommended Posts

I am not asking for you to disclose "specifics about a new release" I just want to know if they are showing any new features of a major release yet. I am debating if I should join again and seeing an early view of what's coming soon is really my only interest.

 

Also, is there a Tech Net private forum anymore or is their new public forum the only one?

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two kinds of memberships. Community which is free and Developer which has an annual membership of $99.

 

For more information, click the more information button "FileMaker Developer Subscription"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that there is a somewhat "private" forum there that is open to certified developers only. It is receiving little traffic so far, but the revised site is still pretty new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This says you can get 'early view of unreleased software'.  Does that mean the actual working program with a regular license or is it a mock-up version of the program that will expire or can't be upgraded?  What exactly would we get?  For $99, it would be a steal.  And same question about the server.

 

If it would mean I would get FM14 when it comes out, this would be a good deal.  I had already purchased the training series and our company already has FMS but it would be good to have FMS at home as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 our company already has FMS but it would be good to have FMS at home as well.

The developer membership used to include a limited version of FMS for testing purposes. I think it is 3 seats, but I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The developer membership used to include a limited version of FMS for testing purposes. I think it is 3 seats, but I could be wrong.

 

Unfortunately the developer FMS now is limited to 1 concurrent connection for WebDirect of Go connections, which makes testing almost impossible (in my opinion) since one of the key things a developer needs to test is record locking with multiple users.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

record locking can be tested by locking the record in a copy of FMP easily enough...

 

 

In my opinion, there are enough substantial differences between FM Desktop Client, Go, and WebDirect that real-world testing is necessary.  Sure, you can test *some* of the logic using desktop versions, but that's no substitute for the real thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past has there been any instances where a new version "breaks" compatibility with a previous version?  I.e., if you had an FMP10 database and when FMP11 came out, did it still work without any issues?

 

It seems that FM tries to maintain compatibility.  As someone who started at FM13, I didn't understand the point of the "global storage" option for fields, for instance (insofar as the contents were per user and deleted across shutdowns/startsup of FM), until I learned it was a way to have global variables before there were global variables.  And somewhat similarly with "repetitions" prior to portals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an internal list of things I want to see in FM14!

 

Doesn't everyone. Don't hold your breath - many of us have items that have been on the list for over a decade.

 

 

As someone who started at FM13, I didn't understand the point of the "global storage" option for fields, for instance (insofar as the contents were per user and deleted across shutdowns/startsup of FM), until I learned it was a way to have global variables before there were global variables.

 

Global variables do NOT replace global fields. For one thing, you cannot use a global variable as the matchfield in a relationship. For another, global variables are not subject to user privileges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past has there been any instances where a new version "breaks" compatibility with a previous version?  I.e., if you had an FMP10 database and when FMP11 came out, did it still work without any issues?

 

 

******* happens... so yes.  Which is why you carefully test your solutions in a new version before jumping on, and you wait and monitor the forums to see what issues are reported.

This is not a FM issue though, the same applies with new OS versions and sub-versions.

it was a way to have global variables before there were global variables.  

 

 

On that topic: global variables (as a means to pass parameters between scripts) = unstructured programming

 

(Hacker's monthly, issue 55)

post-57725-0-80383600-1420813138_thumb.p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't say that correctly -- global variables as a way to *persist* variables across scripts is what I meant.  I.e., for a given "script" I'll break it down into a bunch of sub-scripts if you will (easier to test, etc.), and use a global variable in this case, whereas if there was just a single mega script, the variable would be local. 

 

Is that considered OK usage of global variables?  I'm a self-taught hack programmer.  :)


And as to your article -- I learned how to program on a Commodore Vic-20 in BASIC!  Good times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for a given "script" I'll break it down into a bunch of sub-scripts

 

In such case, using the script parameter to pass data to the sub-script and the script result to pass data back to the calling script would be much better practice.

 

However, there's only one script parameter per script and one script result overall - so this may not be as simple as it sounds when you need to pass several items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In such case, using the script parameter to pass data to the sub-script and the script result to pass data back to the calling script would be much better practice.

 

However, there's only one script parameter per script and one script result overall - so this may not be as simple as it sounds when you need to pass several items.

 

Yeah, that's exactly the problem I had.  I had a recursive script, so the parameter had to be the "recursion" if you will.  But there was another parameter that was floating around, too, so I set that to a global.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 a way to *persist* variables across scripts is what I meant.  I.e., for a given "script" I'll break it down into a bunch of sub-scripts if you will (easier to test, etc.), and use a global variable in this case,

 

That's not good programming practice because your intent is for the scope of the variables to only live for your series of scripts but the real scope is the lifetime of that file's session.  So that forces you to clean up those variables when you are done.  If you forget the variable will live on past its intended scope and may interfere with other areas.

 

A better practice would be to pass the variables along between scripts as local variables so that their scope will never exceed the lifetime of the scripts.

 

http://www.soliantconsulting.com/blog/2014/01/all-variables-should-be-global-or-not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mikedr,

This is one of the practices that I, as a semi-self taught developer, had to get out of also. I'll admit, I have moments of lapses, because it's SOOOOO easy to do...and I'm in a hurry to get something working.

 

It it only a matter of time before either the security element, or the variable-collision element, bites you. Both can be detrimental to your data, and relationship with your client/users. :)

 

It takes a little getting used to, but will in the long run save you a ton of time in debugging, clean-up, and head-banging. 

 

That is the way to clear them yes...but take seriously the recommended practice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I clean them up by setting them to ""?  I just read this in another thread today.

 

Setting a variable to "" deletes it. There is no other way to do so. However, the idea here is not creating it in the first place, thus not having to delete it.

 

Note also that although elaborate ways have been devised to pass multiple values in a single parameter/result, in most cases a simple return-delimited list will be quite sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It's careful to note that sometimes we may just answer a question on how to do something and not necessarily point out it's not best-practice. Though, often, we try to offer up additional observations if they seems necessary.

 

2. That situation wasn't passing variables between scripts. It was modifying the expected behavior of a UI element due to script triggers. More UI and less parameters of a script.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in most cases a simple return-delimited list will be quite sufficient.

 

Until you need to pass a return-delimited result as one of the parameters.  Better to go with one of the established safe ways to do it.  I would not consider them elaborate; they're just a couple of custom functions that you paste into your files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.