No longer 'pending', FileMaker 9 has now been officially released.
Here's the news item from MacRumors.com ...


FileMaker has released FileMaker Pro 9 and FileMaker Server 9
------------------------------------------------------------ -
FileMaker's site outlines the new features.

FileMaker Pro 9 includes many new features, for
end users and developers, to simplify creating,
automating, sharing and reporting from databases,
including a new Quick Start screen for new users
to be quickly productive; Conditional Formatting,
which highlights data based on parameters the
user sets; and the ability to email a link to
other FileMaker users, which they can click to
instantly access your database.

All FileMaker 9 products are immediately available. New users
may purchase FileMaker Pro 9 for $299 and FileMaker Pro 9
Advanced for $499. Existing users of FileMaker Pro 7, 8 and
8.5 may upgrade to FileMaker Pro 9 for $179. A 30 day trial
is available.

Press Release:
http://www.filemaker.com/company/newsroom/releases/1303210.h tml

30 day trial:
http://www.filemakertrial.com/nskto/form/entry.aspx

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Any idea if FMP 9 solutions will run on FMSA 8?

Steve


On 7/10/07 1:48 PM, in article
110720070848470567%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com, "Helpful Harry"
<helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

>
> No longer 'pending', FileMaker 9 has now been officially released.
> Here's the news item from MacRumors.com ...
>
>
> FileMaker has released FileMaker Pro 9 and FileMaker Server 9
> ------------------------------------------------------------ -
> FileMaker's site outlines the new features.
>
> FileMaker Pro 9 includes many new features, for
> end users and developers, to simplify creating,
> automating, sharing and reporting from databases,
> including a new Quick Start screen for new users
> to be quickly productive; Conditional Formatting,
> which highlights data based on parameters the
> user sets; and the ability to email a link to
> other FileMaker users, which they can click to
> instantly access your database.
>
> All FileMaker 9 products are immediately available. New users
> may purchase FileMaker Pro 9 for $299 and FileMaker Pro 9
> Advanced for $499. Existing users of FileMaker Pro 7, 8 and
> 8.5 may upgrade to FileMaker Pro 9 for $179. A 30 day trial
> is available.
>
> Press Release:
> http://www.filemaker.com/company/newsroom/releases/1303210.h tml
>
> 30 day trial:
> http://www.filemakertrial.com/nskto/form/entry.aspx
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Sheeesh, I just bought 8.5 less than a week ago!

"Steve McGillivray" <stagecraft [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:C2B9A49D.70F3%stagecraft [at] cox.net...
> Any idea if FMP 9 solutions will run on FMSA 8?
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 7/10/07 1:48 PM, in article
> 110720070848470567%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com, "Helpful Harry"
> <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> No longer 'pending', FileMaker 9 has now been officially released.
>> Here's the news item from MacRumors.com ...
>>
>>
>> FileMaker has released FileMaker Pro 9 and FileMaker Server 9
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ -
>> FileMaker's site outlines the new features.
>>
>> FileMaker Pro 9 includes many new features, for
>> end users and developers, to simplify creating,
>> automating, sharing and reporting from databases,
>> including a new Quick Start screen for new users
>> to be quickly productive; Conditional Formatting,
>> which highlights data based on parameters the
>> user sets; and the ability to email a link to
>> other FileMaker users, which they can click to
>> instantly access your database.
>>
>> All FileMaker 9 products are immediately available. New users
>> may purchase FileMaker Pro 9 for $299 and FileMaker Pro 9
>> Advanced for $499. Existing users of FileMaker Pro 7, 8 and
>> 8.5 may upgrade to FileMaker Pro 9 for $179. A 30 day trial
>> is available.
>>
>> Press Release:
>> http://www.filemaker.com/company/newsroom/releases/1303210.h tml
>>
>> 30 day trial:
>> http://www.filemakertrial.com/nskto/form/entry.aspx
>>
>> Helpful Harry
>> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
>

In article <46946741$1 [at] dnews.tpgi.com.au>, "Lewis"
<swopshop [at] tpg.com.au> wrote:

> Sheeesh, I just bought 8.5 less than a week ago!

You might be able to get a free upgrade. Some companies do that, as
long as you've still got the receipt. It's probably worth checking.



Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

I could not find any thorough change-log on Filemaker corporate web-site, so
I've got some questions to those, who might have been able to use the new
version already:

Are there any changes/additions in built-in Functions? How about using FMA 8
databases with FMA 9, any problems to be worried about?

Thanks.

-antti-

On 10.7.2007 23:48, in article
110720070848470567%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com, "Helpful Harry"
<helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

>
> No longer 'pending', FileMaker 9 has now been officially released.
> Here's the news item from MacRumors.com ...
>
>
> FileMaker has released FileMaker Pro 9 and FileMaker Server 9
> ------------------------------------------------------------ -
> FileMaker's site outlines the new features.
>
> FileMaker Pro 9 includes many new features, for
> end users and developers, to simplify creating,
> automating, sharing and reporting from databases,
> including a new Quick Start screen for new users
> to be quickly productive; Conditional Formatting,
> which highlights data based on parameters the
> user sets; and the ability to email a link to
> other FileMaker users, which they can click to
> instantly access your database.
>
> All FileMaker 9 products are immediately available. New users
> may purchase FileMaker Pro 9 for $299 and FileMaker Pro 9
> Advanced for $499. Existing users of FileMaker Pro 7, 8 and
> 8.5 may upgrade to FileMaker Pro 9 for $179. A 30 day trial
> is available.
>
> Press Release:
> http://www.filemaker.com/company/newsroom/releases/1303210.h tml
>
> 30 day trial:
> http://www.filemakertrial.com/nskto/form/entry.aspx
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

No problem running FM8 databases with FM9 clients or on FM9 server (even
with FM8 clients). They are completely compatible. The only limitation
is that new FM9 features will only work when running on an FM9 client
and, in some cases, on FM Server 9.

There are not really any substantiative changes to existing features or
functionality, except that the Save As PDF feature now results in a
much-reduced file size as compared to PDFs generated in 8.5.

There are a number of new features: conditional layout formatting,
append to PDF, changes to scriptmaker and debugger, and many others.
See http://www.filemaker.com/products/fmp/features.html for a more
complete list.


Antti Ussa wrote:
> Are there any changes/additions in built-in Functions? How about using FMA 8
> databases with FMA 9, any problems to be worried about?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -antti-
>
> On 10.7.2007 23:48, in article
> 110720070848470567%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com, "Helpful Harry"
> <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
>
>> No longer 'pending', FileMaker 9 has now been officially released.
>> Here's the news item from MacRumors.com ...
>>
>>
>> FileMaker has released FileMaker Pro 9 and FileMaker Server 9
>> ------------------------------------------------------------ -
>> FileMaker's site outlines the new features.
>>
>> FileMaker Pro 9 includes many new features, for
>> end users and developers, to simplify creating,
>> automating, sharing and reporting from databases,
>> including a new Quick Start screen for new users
>> to be quickly productive; Conditional Formatting,
>> which highlights data based on parameters the
>> user sets; and the ability to email a link to
>> other FileMaker users, which they can click to
>> instantly access your database.
>>
>> All FileMaker 9 products are immediately available. New users
>> may purchase FileMaker Pro 9 for $299 and FileMaker Pro 9
>> Advanced for $499. Existing users of FileMaker Pro 7, 8 and
>> 8.5 may upgrade to FileMaker Pro 9 for $179. A 30 day trial
>> is available.
>>
>> Press Release:
>> http://www.filemaker.com/company/newsroom/releases/1303210.h tml
>>
>> 30 day trial:
>> http://www.filemakertrial.com/nskto/form/entry.aspx
>>
>> Helpful Harry
>> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
>

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg
FM Professional Solutions, Inc. Los Angeles

FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
Member, FileMaker Business Alliance

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Martin Trautmann wrote:
> Did they change the file format? In former times the format was changed
> every two versions:
> .fp3: FMP3/4
> .fp5: FMP5/6
> .fp7: FMP7/8/8.5

Nope. Still .fp7 file format, completely compatible with previous versions.


> I'd like to know whether e.g. the PDF bug from
> FMP7 is fixed finally (PDFs with different font styles include the font
> definition again and again, creating PDFs up to 100 times as big - e.g. today
> 14 MB for 30 pages, where FMP6 takes 500 KB only for the same
> pagelayout)

Resulting PDF file sizes have been fixed, plus there is now an Append to
PDF feature (in addition to the Save as PDF).


> May I reference fields by names now, not only for Set commands, but by
> Replace as well? (e.g. a custom formula "addvalue(value)"

No.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg
FM Professional Solutions, Inc. Los Angeles

FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
Member, FileMaker Business Alliance

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <slrnf9a5nh.8b1.t-use [at] ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
Trautmann <t-use [at] gmx.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > May I reference fields by names now, not only for Set commands, but by
> > > Replace as well? (e.g. a custom formula "addvalue(value)"
> >
> > No.
>
> Hm, thanks for the confirmation. They added tons of stuff (such as SQL
> gadgets), while the basic and IMHO more important functions are still
> missing - a very microsoftish approach of development :-(

A "Set Repetition" function has been missing ever since they introduced
the Get Repetition function. :o\

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

"Helpful Harry" <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> schreef in bericht
news:120720070857068721%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com...
> In article <slrnf9a5nh.8b1.t-use [at] ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
> Trautmann <t-use [at] gmx.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > May I reference fields by names now, not only for Set commands, but
>> > > by
>> > > Replace as well? (e.g. a custom formula "addvalue(value)"
>> >
>> > No.
>>
>> Hm, thanks for the confirmation. They added tons of stuff (such as SQL
>> gadgets), while the basic and IMHO more important functions are still
>> missing - a very microsoftish approach of development :-(
>
> A "Set Repetition" function has been missing ever since they introduced
> the Get Repetition function. :o\
>

Set Field < MyField[2]> will set the second repetition of MyField, so why
would we need a Set Repetition function?

Evenso for the Get(repetition) function
MyField[2] will return the same as GetRepetition(MyField;2)

Keep Well, Ursus

In article <120720070857068721%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com>
HelpfulHarry <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnf9a5nh.8b1.t-use [at] ID-685.user.individual.de>,
> Martin Trautmann <t-use [at] gmx.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > May I reference fields by names now, not only for Set
>> commands, but by > > Replace as well? (e.g. a custom formula
>> "addvalue(value)" >
>> > No.
>>
>> Hm, thanks for the confirmation. They added tons of stuff (such as
>> SQL gadgets), while the basic and IMHO more important functions are
>> still missing - a very microsoftish approach of development :-(

> A "Set Repetition" function has been missing ever since they
> introducedthe Get Repetition function. :o\
>

I can't say exactly when they introduced it, but in 8.5, Set Field
allows you to specify the repetition.
Matt

In article <nemoWed071107062057 [at] news.verizon.net>, Matt WIlls
<Im [at] Witz.End> wrote:

> In article <120720070857068721%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com>
> HelpfulHarry <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <slrnf9a5nh.8b1.t-use [at] ID-685.user.individual.de>,
> > Martin Trautmann <t-use [at] gmx.net> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > May I reference fields by names now, not only for Set
> >> commands, but by > > Replace as well? (e.g. a custom formula
> >> "addvalue(value)" >
> >> > No.
> >>
> >> Hm, thanks for the confirmation. They added tons of stuff (such as
> >> SQL gadgets), while the basic and IMHO more important functions are
> >> still missing - a very microsoftish approach of development :-(
> >
> > A "Set Repetition" function has been missing ever since they
> > introducedthe Get Repetition function. :o\
>
> I can't say exactly when they introduced it, but in 8.5, Set Field
> allows you to specify the repetition.

You have been able to specify the repetition all along, but the problem
is that you could only hard code the repetition number
ie.
Set Field [MyRepeatingField(-4), "Value"]

but you can't use a field to dynamically set a repetition, making them
more useless than they should be.
ie.
There is no
Set Field [MyRepeatingField(RepeatNumber), "Value"]

I can't quite recall whether or not someone said this had finally been
fixed in FileMaker 8.5, but it's been missing since FileMaker
introduced Repeating Fields (version1? version 2?).

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

You CAN use a calc or variable or whatever in 8.5 to dynamically set a
repetition number.

Helpful Harry wrote:
> In article <nemoWed071107062057 [at] news.verizon.net>, Matt WIlls
> <Im [at] Witz.End> wrote:
>
>> In article <120720070857068721%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com>
>> HelpfulHarry <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <slrnf9a5nh.8b1.t-use [at] ID-685.user.individual.de>,
>>> Martin Trautmann <t-use [at] gmx.net> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > May I reference fields by names now, not only for Set
>>>> commands, but by > > Replace as well? (e.g. a custom formula
>>>> "addvalue(value)" >
>>>> > No.
>>>>
>>>> Hm, thanks for the confirmation. They added tons of stuff (such as
>>>> SQL gadgets), while the basic and IMHO more important functions are
>>>> still missing - a very microsoftish approach of development :-(
>>> A "Set Repetition" function has been missing ever since they
>>> introducedthe Get Repetition function. :o\
>> I can't say exactly when they introduced it, but in 8.5, Set Field
>> allows you to specify the repetition.
>
> You have been able to specify the repetition all along, but the problem
> is that you could only hard code the repetition number
> ie.
> Set Field [MyRepeatingField(-4), "Value"]
>
> but you can't use a field to dynamically set a repetition, making them
> more useless than they should be.
> ie.
> There is no
> Set Field [MyRepeatingField(RepeatNumber), "Value"]
>
> I can't quite recall whether or not someone said this had finally been
> fixed in FileMaker 8.5, but it's been missing since FileMaker
> introduced Repeating Fields (version1? version 2?).
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg
FM Professional Solutions, Inc. Los Angeles

FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
Member, FileMaker Business Alliance

In article <139bis0or8qjf9d [at] corp.supernews.com>, Howard Schlossberg
<howard [at] nospam.fmprosolutions.com> wrote:
> Helpful Harry wrote:
> > In article <nemoWed071107062057 [at] news.verizon.net>, Matt WIlls
> > <Im [at] Witz.End> wrote:
> >> In article <120720070857068721%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com>
> >> HelpfulHarry <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <slrnf9a5nh.8b1.t-use [at] ID-685.user.individual.de>,
> >>> Martin Trautmann <t-use [at] gmx.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hm, thanks for the confirmation. They added tons of stuff (such as
> >>>> SQL gadgets), while the basic and IMHO more important functions are
> >>>> still missing - a very microsoftish approach of development :-(
> >>>>
> >>> A "Set Repetition" function has been missing ever since they
> >>> introducedthe Get Repetition function. :o\
> >>
> >> I can't say exactly when they introduced it, but in 8.5, Set Field
> >> allows you to specify the repetition.
> >
> > You have been able to specify the repetition all along, but the problem
> > is that you could only hard code the repetition number
> > ie.
> > Set Field [MyRepeatingField(-4), "Value"]
> >
> > but you can't use a field to dynamically set a repetition, making them
> > more useless than they should be.
> > ie.
> > There is no
> > Set Field [MyRepeatingField(RepeatNumber), "Value"]
> >
> > I can't quite recall whether or not someone said this had finally been
> > fixed in FileMaker 8.5, but it's been missing since FileMaker
> > introduced Repeating Fields (version1? version 2?).
>
> You CAN use a calc or variable or whatever in 8.5 to dynamically set a
> repetition number.

Great, but the point still stands - it took AGES for that to happen, so
"important" things like Martin Trautmann's wish for example (and I have
no idea how important that particular one really is) might just about
arrive with FileMaker 15. :o\


Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Helpful Harry wrote:
> In article <139bis0or8qjf9d [at] corp.supernews.com>, Howard Schlossberg
> <howard [at] nospam.fmprosolutions.com> wrote:
>> Helpful Harry wrote:

>> You CAN use a calc or variable or whatever in 8.5 to dynamically set a
>> repetition number.
>
> Great, but the point still stands - it took AGES for that to happen, so
> "important" things like Martin Trautmann's wish for example (and I have
> no idea how important that particular one really is) might just about
> arrive with FileMaker 15. :o\

No question that it is a good point. My understanding is that to do it
within the current file format, it would be much too slow to be
acceptable. But FileMaker is aware of Martin's wish (well not that they
necessarily know Martin, but they have heard the same thing from many,
many people) and I hav a feeling we are all happy there is no file
format change with FM9 if we had to sacrifice Marin's feature to have it
that way. This time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg
FM Professional Solutions, Inc. Los Angeles

FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
Member, FileMaker Business Alliance

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <120720071814463530%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com>
HelpfulHarry <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:

> In article <nemoWed071107062057 [at] news.verizon.net>, Matt
> WIlls<Im [at] Witz.End> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <120720070857068721%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com>
>> HelpfulHarry <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article
>> <slrnf9a5nh.8b1.t-use [at] ID-685.user.individual.de>, > Martin
>> Trautmann <t-use [at] gmx.net> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > May I reference fields by names now, not only
>> for Set >> commands, but by > > Replace as well? (e.g. a
>> custom formula >> "addvalue(value)" >
>> >> > No.
>> >>
>> >> Hm, thanks for the confirmation. They added tons of
>> stuff (such as >> SQL gadgets), while the basic and IMHO more
>> important functions are >> still missing - a very microsoftish
>> approach of development :-( >
>> > A "Set Repetition" function has been missing ever since they
>> > introducedthe Get Repetition function. :o\
>>
>> I can't say exactly when they introduced it, but in 8.5, Set Field
>> allows you to specify the repetition.

> You have been able to specify the repetition all along, but the
> problemis that you could only hard code the repetition number
> ie.
> Set Field [MyRepeatingField(-4), "Value"]
>
> but you can't use a field to dynamically set a repetition, making
> themmore useless than they should be.
> ie.
> There is no
> Set Field [MyRepeatingField(RepeatNumber), "Value"]
>
> I can't quite recall whether or not someone said this had finally
> been fixed in FileMaker 8.5, but it's been missing since
> FileMakerintroduced Repeating Fields (version1? version 2?).
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships
> ;o)

8.5 will set the repitition dynamically, using a field value or a
calulcation.
Matt

I did less than a month ago. However, I called FM this morning and found
out what to do:

Go to the FM home page and in the upper right banner, select Purchases, then
click Promotions.

In the middle of the page is a link to a PDF that lets you provide your FM
8.5 registration information, requests proof of purchase, and along with
$30+tax you can get 9 shipped to you in 4 to 6 weeks.

Hope that helps!

Larry Kahm
Heliotropic Systems, Inc.

"Lewis" <swopshop [at] tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:46946741$1 [at] dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Sheeesh, I just bought 8.5 less than a week ago!
>
> "Steve McGillivray" <stagecraft [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:C2B9A49D.70F3%stagecraft [at] cox.net...
>> Any idea if FMP 9 solutions will run on FMSA 8?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/07 1:48 PM, in article
>> 110720070848470567%helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com, "Helpful Harry"
>> <helpful_harry [at] nom.de.plume.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No longer 'pending', FileMaker 9 has now been officially released.
>>> Here's the news item from MacRumors.com ...
>>>
>>>
>>> FileMaker has released FileMaker Pro 9 and FileMaker Server 9
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ -
>>> FileMaker's site outlines the new features.
>>>
>>> FileMaker Pro 9 includes many new features, for
>>> end users and developers, to simplify creating,
>>> automating, sharing and reporting from databases,
>>> including a new Quick Start screen for new users
>>> to be quickly productive; Conditional Formatting,
>>> which highlights data based on parameters the
>>> user sets; and the ability to email a link to
>>> other FileMaker users, which they can click to
>>> instantly access your database.
>>>
>>> All FileMaker 9 products are immediately available. New users
>>> may purchase FileMaker Pro 9 for $299 and FileMaker Pro 9
>>> Advanced for $499. Existing users of FileMaker Pro 7, 8 and
>>> 8.5 may upgrade to FileMaker Pro 9 for $179. A 30 day trial
>>> is available.
>>>
>>> Press Release:
>>> http://www.filemaker.com/company/newsroom/releases/1303210.h tml
>>>
>>> 30 day trial:
>>> http://www.filemakertrial.com/nskto/form/entry.aspx
>>>
>>> Helpful Harry
>>> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships
>>> ;o)
>>
>

Martin Trautmann wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:19:34 -0700, Howard Schlossberg wrote:
>> No question that it is a good point. My understanding is that to do it
>> within the current file format, it would be much too slow to be
>> acceptable.
>
> I don't see any correlation how the handling of a REPLACE operation
> would depend on the file format.
>
> I guess it's common knowledge that a SetField calculation commmand does
> work within the context of a single SetField script command - but the
> operation via Replace by calculated result does not work.

I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting here. Set Field and
Replace are both similar in that they both have to target a specific
field. So as far as being able to dynamically specify a target field
name through a calc, it has to do with file structure because FMP would
currently have to translate the name you give it into an internal field
ID. It's an extra internal step that it seems will have a hit on
performance.

If you are asking to being able to specify a replace *result* so that it
dynamically refers to whatever field it's in, there has always been the
get(ActiveFieldName) function, but FM9 has introduced a new function
called Self() that is more geared for such a purpose.


> Yes, this would be a significant improvement: A tracking mechanism that
> would monitor EVERY change of each cell, at least by sequence, maybe
> even monitoring time and user, in order to permit an unlimited undo
> capability. Obviously this would increase the size of databases - but
> the same way that you can turn indexing on/off, you might turn
> monitoring on/off and clean up the full database by saving it as a
> compressed copy.

There is now something that will do what you want, called fmDataGuard:

•Roll-forward any backup to the present state of the database. It
updates the backup.

•Roll-back inadvertent or accidental changes caused by authorized users.

•Maintain a complete forensic log of changes in all tables.

A QuickTime video demonstrating these capabilities will be available
on-line at http://www.worldsync.com/fmDataGuard.


> Yet another significant improvement would be the capability to work on
> external file formats - not only to open, then save as converted .fp7
> file, then export to the external file format, but to work directly on
> .csv, .xls or even .xml (where .fp7 applications do not even offer
> working .xml export/import).

Perhaps having the external SQL source is only a first step toward this?


> If I'd want SQL, it's easier to take MySQL directly. (Agreed, the
> learning curve up to a working solution is much steeper).

But what if you were told you HAD to use a SQL database, but you wanted
the option of putting an easy-to-use front end on it? FM9 to the rescue.


> Oh, yet another question comes to my mind: How well does FMP9 work on
> related searches?

I haven't tried FM9 on any huge database (i.e. hundreds of thousands of
records), but even FM8 was lightyears ahead of FM6 in this regard.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg
FM Professional Solutions, Inc. Los Angeles

FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
Member, FileMaker Business Alliance

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <slrnf9a5nh.8b1.t-use [at] ID-685.user.individual.de>,
Martin Trautmann <traut [at] gmx.de> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:19:03 -0700, Howard Schlossberg wrote:
>> Martin Trautmann wrote:
>> > I'd like to know whether e.g. the PDF bug from
>> > FMP7 is fixed finally (PDFs with different font styles include the font
>> > definition again and again, creating PDFs up to 100 times as big - e.g. today
>> > 14 MB for 30 pages, where FMP6 takes 500 KB only for the same
>> > pagelayout)
>>
>> Resulting PDF file sizes have been fixed, plus there is now an Append to
>> PDF feature (in addition to the Save as PDF).
>
>I'll wait for a check - there's no download confirmation mail yet...

This was of great interest to me, so I downloaded the trial copy and
installed it on a "virgin" test system. I can confirm that they've
definitely cleaned up that horrid printing code that they introduced
with FMP7. It's not everything that I would like, but it's close
enough.

My test consisted of a simple database with 500 records. Each record
had a random date field and a single text field, chosen from the output
of the fortune(1) program. (Hey, why not have fun with random data?)
I then created a layout for printing it in a columnar format, using the
Cochin type family, which is guaranteed to require embedding in
PostScript or PDF files for output. Each page would contain 16-20
records, and need the Cochin, Cochin-Bold, and Cochin-BoldItalic fonts.

If I had tried this with FileMaker Pro 7, 8, or 8.5, the resulting
output would have been huge, with at least 60 subsetted fonts per page
(as many as three per record), times however many pages were in the
document. The printer would have taken several minutes to render each
page, or simply choked with a cryptic error like this one:

ERROR: MemoryFull
OFFENDING COMMAND: definefont

STACK:

-dictionary-
/F83.1

FileMaker Pro 9 is a world better. Your results depend on your output
format, and how you get there.

First, if you print directly to a PDF file using Mac OS X's native PDF
libraries, you'll get very usable results. Using this example, I got a
nice 88 KB file that included exactly three fonts, which is what I would
expect.

If you use the built-in "Save Records as PDF" script step, which are
present in both the Mac OS X and Windows versions of FMP9, you get the
same basic results. The file size is a bit larger, although not
unbearably so -- 156 KB instead of 88 KB, in my case. But it still
contains just one copy each of three fonts for the whole document. The
difference in sizes is likely related to, among other things, the
different rendering engines. The native Mac OS X engine creates PDFs
with a Producer field of "Mac OS X 10.4.10 Quartz PDFContext". For the
larger file that was produced by FileMaker Pro itself, the Producer
field is listed as, "Adobe PDF Library 6.1"

I decided to try saving the PostScript output instead of rendering it as
a PDF. Here's where the old problem showed up, albeit as a shadow of
its former self. When I used OS X's "Save PDF as PostScript" function
in the printer dialog, the resulting file was a whopping 3.8 MB.

A little digging partially allayed my fears. Here, Unix comes in handy.
I decided to look for any lines in the PostScript file that contained
the strings "/FontName /" or "%%Page:". PostScript output from printer
drivers is often organized into pages, with "%%Page:" being used as a
comment to denote the beginning of a new page to be printed. The
"FontName" reference would show me lines where the code was about to
describe a new font to be sent to the printer.

$ egrep '(/FontName /|%%Page:)' test_database_output.ps
%%Page: 1 1
14 dict begin/FontName /HMQYOB+Cochin-Bold def
14 dict begin/FontName /PKFVRB+Cochin-BoldItalic def
14 dict begin/FontName /HWRRFT+Cochin def
%%Page: 2 2
14 dict begin/FontName /HMQYOB+Cochin-Bold def
14 dict begin/FontName /PKFVRB+Cochin-BoldItalic def
14 dict begin/FontName /DOKZAW+Cochin def
%%Page: 3 3
14 dict begin/FontName /HMQYOB+Cochin-Bold def
14 dict begin/FontName /PKFVRB+Cochin-BoldItalic def
14 dict begin/FontName /NZSAWG+Cochin def
%%Page: 4 4
14 dict begin/FontName /HMQYOB+Cochin-Bold def
14 dict begin/FontName /PKFVRB+Cochin-BoldItalic def
14 dict begin/FontName /FPFEMB+Cochin def
%%Page: 5 5
14 dict begin/FontName /HMQYOB+Cochin-Bold def
14 dict begin/FontName /PKFVRB+Cochin-BoldItalic def
14 dict begin/FontName /ZZHIMD+Cochin def
[...]
%%Page: 27 27
14 dict begin/FontName /HMQYOB+Cochin-Bold def
14 dict begin/FontName /PKFVRB+Cochin-BoldItalic def
14 dict begin/FontName /JHOLJC+Cochin def

It seems that FileMaker "fixed" the problem by including a copy of the
font on a per-page basis. This is normally unnecessary -- you only need
a single definition of the font in the whole document. It is a waste of
resources to include a copy of the font separately on each page, UNLESS
you are creating code that is designed to be page-independent. That is,
this is only sensible if one plans to extract single pages from the
document as stand-alone PostScript code.

But that argument is merely a quibble over programming style. I wanted
to see what all this extra overhead would do when I sent it to a real
printer. I sent the 27-page document to my trusty HP LaserJet 2200DN
(with duplexing, so as to spare a bit of a tree). The document printed
with no noticeable delay, and without any errors.

FileMaker, I think we have a winner. And you will be seeing a sale from
me for the first time in years.

--
Gregory Pratt gp [at] panix.com
East Rutherford, NJ, USA http://www.panix.com/~gp/
"You're only given one little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it."
PGP Key Fingerprint: DC60 FCDE 91E2 3D41 91A3 45DB B474 3D3A 3621 AAFE