Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.databases.filemaker > #1495 > unrolled thread

Value Not Dependent on the Found Set

Back to article view | Back to comp.databases.filemaker

Contents

  Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-11 09:16 -0800
    Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Howard - FM Pro Solutions <fmprosolutions@gmail.com> - 2013-11-11 09:33 -0800
      Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-13 09:47 -0800
        Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Erik Appeldoorn <ursus.kirk@gmail.com> - 2013-11-13 19:29 +0100
          Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-16 00:01 -0800
            Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set "E. Appeldoorn" <ursus.kirk@ziggo.nl> - 2013-11-16 10:24 +0100
              Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-18 10:14 -0800
                Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> - 2013-11-19 08:42 +1300
                  Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-19 09:20 -0800
                    Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> - 2013-11-20 09:08 +1300
        Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> - 2013-11-14 09:19 +1300
          Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-16 00:01 -0800
        Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Howard - FM Pro Solutions <fmprosolutions@gmail.com> - 2013-11-13 12:41 -0800
          Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> - 2013-11-14 18:57 +1300
          Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-16 00:01 -0800
            Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Howard Schlossberg <howard@nospam.fmprosolutions.com> - 2013-11-16 15:08 -0800
              Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> - 2013-11-17 12:43 +1300
                Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-18 06:58 -0800
              Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-18 10:02 -0800
                Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-20 07:00 -0800
                  Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Howard - FM Pro Solutions <fmprosolutions@gmail.com> - 2013-11-20 09:44 -0800
                    Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> - 2013-11-21 09:04 +1300
                      Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Howard - FM Pro Solutions <fmprosolutions@gmail.com> - 2013-11-20 12:55 -0800
                      Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set clkaufmann@gmx.ch (Christoph Kaufmann) - 2013-11-21 16:59 +0100
                        Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> - 2013-11-22 09:22 +1300
    Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set clkaufmann@gmx.ch (Christoph Kaufmann) - 2013-11-11 19:38 +0100
    Re: Value Not Dependent on the Found Set csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2013-11-20 23:00 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#1527

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:00:51 AM UTC-8, Charles H. Sampson wrote:
> Charles H. Sampson wrote:
> 
> > Howard Schlossberg <howard@nospam.fmprosolutions.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> > > >>                But why even bother with a calc field when you are
> 
> > > >using a script anyhow to arrive at the layout you want to use? Why
> 
> > > >not add a small routine in that script to go to all records in a
> 
> > > >new, hidden window grab the total, plug it into a global field or
> 
> > > >variable, and then display it on your UI layout?
> 
> 
> 
> > > >And what happens when one of the fields that this value depends on is
> 
> > > >changed? According to the Pogue book, FileMaker Pro 8 is very limited
> 
> > > >in the actions that you can attach a script to and committing a record
> 
> > > >is not one of them. If I have to program every action in the database
> 
> > > >using scripts, I can do that but I'll be very disappointed that
> 
> > > >FileMaker doesn't take some of the burden from me.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > It's been many years since I've fired up FileMaker 8, but I'm pretty
> 
> > > sure they had script triggers in 8 and, if so, then OnCommit was 
> 
> > > certainly one of them from the start.
> 
> > 
> 
> >      This sounds promising. I'm trying to find out more about it but so
> 
> > far not much luck. The Pogue book doesn't seem to mention it at all.
> 
> > (I'm beginning to think I've relied too much on the Pogue book.)
> 
> > FileMaker's help refers to a database that I'm looking at right now.
> 
> 
> 
>      No luck so far. The database that FileMaker referred to had to do
> 
> with Apple Events, nothing internal to FileMaker.
> 
> 
> 
>      You're saying that there is a way to trigger a script on committing
> 
> a record, right? If so, I'm beginning to think it came after FileMaker
> 
> Pro 8. Do you have a specific pointer?

I'm sorry -- I just checked and built-in script triggers weren't introduced until FileMaker 10 (FOUR years ago, by the way; I've lost track of time).  You are using a version of FileMaker that is already more than SEVEN years old -- ancient in the software life cycle.  FileMaker 13 is likely to be released in the next couple weeks or months, which will put you FIVE versions out of date.

Before FM10, many of us used one of the free plugins to handle script triggering.  A couple of those include:
	MooPlug: http://mooplug.com/features
	BaseElements: http://www.goya.com.au/category/blogtags/plugin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1529

In article <1ad52e6a-a093-4399-a429-4c44e58f4b02@googlegroups.com>,
Howard - FM Pro Solutions <fmprosolutions@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry -- I just checked and built-in script triggers weren't introduced
> until FileMaker 10 (FOUR years ago, by the way; I've lost track of time). 
> You are using a version of FileMaker that is already more than SEVEN years
> old -- ancient in the software life cycle.  FileMaker 13 is likely to be
> released in the next couple weeks or months, which will put you FIVE versions
> out of date.

I'm still using FileMaker 4 and 5, and my Photoshop-clone software is
even older than that.  :o)

Official support for software may go out of date, but the software
itself is still works and is just as as useful as when it was first
released. Upgrading simply just for the sake of it has always struck me
as pointlessly silly, and expensive.

Helpful Harry   :o)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1530

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 12:04:23 PM UTC-8, Helpful Harry wrote:

> I'm still using FileMaker 4 and 5, and my Photoshop-clone software is
> even older than that.  :o)
> 
> Official support for software may go out of date, but the software
> itself is still works and is just as as useful as when it was first
> released. Upgrading simply just for the sake of it has always struck me
> as pointlessly silly, and expensive.


You'd be correct if it were all pointless change, Harry.  I'd certainly agree with you if you are using an existing solution and you don't need to do any further development on it...but most systems do not remain static for that long.

There have been plenty of user-centric changes over the years since 4 and 5, and there have been even more -- many, many more -- developer-centric improvements over that time.  I don't allow any of my existing customers to use anything below FM 11 at this time, and that will likely be the case for a couple years, at which point FM 13 will likely become the minimum version I am willing to work with.  

If I were a carpenter, why would I continue to use my handsaw when I could spend a little money on an electric saw and save myself a ton of time and blisters to boot?!?  And if I got to a customer's shop after years of using an electric saw, and all they had were handsaws, why on Earth would I want to do work for them.  It would be quite inefficient for me, costly to them and, frankly, would just make my life miserable for all the time I had to work on their projects.

I was recently asked to open an FM6 solution for a potential client that called me.  I kept fumbling with it -- partly because I am now used to doing things a different way than I was back then, but also partly because we just didn't have the quick debugging tools back then that we do now.  I was quite thankful at that point for the evolution.

Howard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1535

Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> wrote:

> Upgrading simply just for the sake of it has always struck me
> as pointlessly silly, and expensive.

My new customers often have more advanced versions of Filemaker than I
have, and most of the time, the solution is just as it was in Filemaker
6 and earlier. One table per file, no script parameters, no variables,
no tabs, hundreds of fields per table. What did they upgrade for?

There appears to be a problem for Mac users: Many versions of Filemaker
do not run on a Mac bought approx. 2 or more years after the Filemaker
version was released, like FMP 8 on OS 10.6. or just anything before FMP
12 on Maverick (and no Filemaker Server runs on Maverick yet). Getting
an new computers means upgrading filemaker.

Whereas Filemaker 3-12 version seem to run on Windows XP, 7 and 8.

-- 
Christoph Kaufmann
http://clk.ch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1536

In article <1lcp28r.1fiyolt17pegqoN%clkaufmann@gmx.ch>, Christoph
Kaufmann <clkaufmann@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Helpful Harry <HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Upgrading simply just for the sake of it has always struck me
> > as pointlessly silly, and expensive.
> 
> My new customers often have more advanced versions of Filemaker than I
> have, and most of the time, the solution is just as it was in Filemaker
> 6 and earlier. One table per file, no script parameters, no variables,
> no tabs, hundreds of fields per table. What did they upgrade for?
> 
> There appears to be a problem for Mac users: Many versions of Filemaker
> do not run on a Mac bought approx. 2 or more years after the Filemaker
> version was released, like FMP 8 on OS 10.6. or just anything before FMP
> 12 on Maverick (and no Filemaker Server runs on Maverick yet). Getting
> an new computers means upgrading filemaker.
> 
> Whereas Filemaker 3-12 version seem to run on Windows XP, 7 and 8.

Getting a new computer can make the upgrade less pointless since it's
often no longer upgrading the software simply for the sake of upgrading
... unless of course getting the new computer itself was simply for the
sake of upgrading, and the old one was still perfectly fine.

One of the problems on the Mac was Apple's switch from PowerPC to Intel
chips. The older versions of Mac FileMaker simply weren't written to
run on Intel chips. Apple has also re-written large parts of Mac OS X,
removed Rosetta (for running PowerPC applications on Intel Macs).


Upgrading tends to be a vicious circle whereby the software upgrades
force the hardware upgrades, and vice versa. With the obvious exception
of a computer that breaks down, there's usually little need for most
people to upgrade.

Helpful Harry  :o)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1497

Charles H. Sampson <csampson@inetworld.net> wrote:

> Is it
> possible to create an expression (specifically, the value of a field)
> that depends on the entire database, not just the current found set?

Create a relation to a new Table Occurence of the table you need. Join
two fields with an "x" instead of "=". This is is a cartesian join,
meaning "show all". It does not matter which fields you pick for the
relation.

No matter on which record you are, the function Sum (
CartesianJoin::MyNumberField ) will list return the number of all
records in that table, because it always finds all the records.

-- 
Christoph Kaufmann
http://clk.ch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1534

     I apologize for any negativity or name-calling that I have
contributed to this thread. Several years ago, I decided to try to
introduce civility to USENET, or at least not contribute to the
incivility. I've gotten sloppy about that recently, nomoreso than in
this thread.

                        Charlie
-- 
Nobody in this country got rich on his own.  You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for.  You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward.  Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.databases.filemaker

csiph-web