On 2011 Sep 7, at 8:40, John Eiseman wrote: > Having informed my client that IWP precludes the use of some script steps and > some strategies, he responded that he would like me to develop two versions > of their solution; one for access via IWP and the other for in their office > via Server access ... yet have the two linked, accessing the same data. Most > of their users are in the office. The client doesn't want me to 'dumb-down' > his solution just so that a couple of remote users can access via IWP. > > Rather than have two linked files, I suppose I could have just one solution > and every time I reach a point where I'd like to use a non-web script step I > test the user, and if he's accessing via IWP, then I execute one set of > steps, and if he's not, I use a separate set. But it seems that this would be > very inconvenient to program. > > I'm basically an amateur and don't know if two linked versions is possible, > at least not easily. Therefore, I'm hoping that there's a better way of > accomplishing what the client wants that I'm unaware of. > > If a client needs some users to access via IWP, must all users live with the > constraints that IWP imposes? > > Thanks for any advice you can give me. > > John Eiseman > St. Louis
Sounds like it might be a job for ODBC. I freely confess that I'm just getting started learning about ODBC myself, so about all I can tell you is to do the same thing I'M doing, which is to read up on the documentation. Basically ODBC is a method of having generic data (a tab-text file, for example) accessible via a front-end interface written in FileMaker Pro. This would let you have 2 separate FMP interfaces — one for the office group, another for the web browsers — both accessing the same data. Give serious thot as to whether you want the latter group actually FIDDLING with the data or just looking at it, as you get a whole slew of interesting considerations if you let them create, delete, or edit records via the internet.
