On 12 Jun 2011, at 03:16, Andy Gordon wrote:

> We are doing something wrong or missing a step.  We use a server with the FMP 
> server version.  This impasse is most frustrating and time consuming.  We 
> wondered if there are re-naming conventions we don't know about that may part 
> of the problem.  Any assistance most appreciated.
> 

Andy

I'm coming back to this a little late; my excuse was a rare holiday of a couple 
of weeks.

I don't think your problem is in naming or re-naming conventions. Rather, I 
think your problem is twofold.

First, I think you haven't got fully to grips with the concept of tables and 
table occurrences in .fp7 files. Things are very different from the FMP6 days 
of one file equals one table. One important point, which I think has already 
been made, is that file references (ie references to external files used, for 
example, in relationships) are now much more explicit. This has a number of 
knock-on effects that, combined with what appears to be a somewhat 
unconventional data model, may mean behaviour is not as expected.

Second, it is possible that some part of your FMP6 process/model (which I don't 
really understand) uses a quirk of FMP6 behaviour that has not carried over to 
.fp7. You have mentioned a couple of times some kind of multiple lookup (where 
you seem to somehow be looking up from more than one file into a single field 
depending on the match value), but this must be a trick that I do not recall 
from FMP6 days... It sounds a bit unlikely to me. But without understanding 
exactly what your FMP6 files are doing, it is not going to be easy to help you.

All in all, I think you may be barking up the wrong tree. Given the immense 
power of FMP11, it is almost certain that you should be looking to abandon your 
system of replicating files every year. There really is no need to do that, 
when you can simply include a 'year' field in every table to indicate which 
year a transaction takes place. Your time would almost certainly be better 
spent developing yourself a modern database structure than trying to replicate 
something that may use a quirk of FMP6 behaviour.

But that's just my opinion...

Good luck. Do ask again if you get stuck further down the line.

Steve

Reply via email to