Is filemake a Relational Data base System?

I know the topic sounds like a really dumb one, but looking at a
sample of Filemaker that they make available, Filemaker does not feel
like an RdB product like Access, for example.

Is this correct or have I missed something critical? Candidly, trying
to develop something significant, such as an integrated yacht club
administrative application that would use many RdB features, looks
almost impossible using the tools they offer

John Baker

Re: Is filemake a Relational Data base System?

In article <1194390810.794497.203450@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, JHB
wrote:

> I know the topic sounds like a really dumb one, but looking at a
> sample of Filemaker that they make available, Filemaker does not feel
> like an RdB product like Access, for example.
>
> Is this correct or have I missed something critical? Candidly, trying
> to develop something significant, such as an integrated yacht club
> administrative application that would use many RdB features, looks
> almost impossible using the tools they offer

FileMaker is definitely a relational database application (or at least
it has been since FileMaker Pro 3), just like Access. In some ways it's
much better than Access, while in other ways it's not as good.
FileMaker tends to be a lot easier to use than Access.

To be "relational" you usually need at least two tables (or two
separate files if you prefer) so that records from one table can be
related to records in another table. Once you have two tables, you can
create the relationship links via the Define Relationships item in the
File menu.
eg.
Link records in TableA to records in TableB
when TableA::IDfield = TableB::IDfield

Sometimes you only need one table and create a self-relationship, which
can be handy for specific purposes.

I don't know what does or doesn't come with the downloadable demo, but
the full application comes with some example / template files, and
there's many other that can be downloaded (many are free).

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

Re: Is filemake a Relational Data base System?

On Nov 6, 3:13 pm, JHB wrote:
> I know the topic sounds like a really dumb one, but looking at a
> sample of Filemaker that they make available, Filemaker does not feel
> like an RdB product like Access, for example.

Thank god! The last thing the world needs is another program like
Access.

> Is this correct or have I missed something critical? Candidly, trying
> to develop something significant, such as an integrated yacht club
> administrative application that would use many RdB features, looks
> almost impossible using the tools they offer

All kidding aside, yes, filemaker is a fully relational database.

But no, its not like Access, and its not a traditional GUI database
application, where the GUI is a translucent veneer on top of SQL.
Filemaker is not a SQL database, and although it can respond to SQL
queries via ODBC, that is not its native tongue.

Programming effectively in filemaker, to invoke a buzzword, is a
paradigm shift. And for people coming from a SQL RDBMS it can be a
tough one. Overall filemaker is less powerful than a SQL RDBMS. And
its programming environment is almost rudimentary compared to what is
available elsewhere.

What filemaker does do well is:
a) Its relational model is easy to understand and grasp for database
neophytes who aren't already comfortable with SQL. its simpler and
easier.

b) its an incredible RAD tool that can be used to build and deploy
applications in a fraction of the time you would expect on a more
traditional RDBMS. Everything from initial construction to deployment
to maintenance is generally faster.

You trade away some power to gain simplicity and development speed.
The power you give up doesn't prevent you from building sophisticated
complex relational applications, but it does 'channel' you somewhat
into HOW you build them. There is no 'treeview', there is no
sophisticated 'event' model. The concept of views is quite simplistic,
etc, etc.

But these weaknesses are also its strengths.

-cheers,
Dave

Re: Is filemake a Relational Data base System?

On Nov 6, 6:13 pm, JHB wrote:
> I know the topic sounds like a really dumb one, but looking at a
> sample of Filemaker that they make available, Filemaker does not feel
> like an RdB product like Access, for example.
>
> Is this correct or have I missed something critical? Candidly, trying
> to develop something significant, such as an integrated yacht club
> administrative application that would use many RdB features, looks
> almost impossible using the tools they offer
>
> John Baker

I'm not sure how you would come up with the idea that a yacht club
admin app is almost impossible in FM. What RdB features does it not
have that such an app requires?

Re: Is filemake a Relational Data base System?

It can be done...

I have some tools I developed for the boating/membership field.

Membership tracking is easy, member info, tables for dues, monthly spending,
slip rental, etc. as well as mailing and email blasts.
Slip rental is easy as well except for the creation of a graphic with all
the slips and the name of each vessel and info about the vessel. A graphic
with a button in each slip is the best I can do. I'd love mouse-over
pop-ups that would trigger a detailed view. It can be done simply with
"Tool Hints"
Regattas and race scoring is also easy
Payroll is easy
Purchases and inventory, both for the ships store as well as galley and
consumables.

BUT there are already written apps that do all this and more.

It ain't about the development platform as much as it's about the specs and
feature set.


--
-------------------------------------------------
Captain Guy
s/v Island Time (Beneteau 352#277)
AICW 845.5
386-689-5088


"JHB" wrote in message
news:1194390810.794497.203450@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com.. .
>I know the topic sounds like a really dumb one, but looking at a
> sample of Filemaker that they make available, Filemaker does not feel
> like an RdB product like Access, for example.
>
> Is this correct or have I missed something critical? Candidly, trying
> to develop something significant, such as an integrated yacht club
> administrative application that would use many RdB features, looks
> almost impossible using the tools they offer
>
> John Baker
>

Re: Is filemake a Relational Data base System?

JHB wrote:
> I know the topic sounds like a really dumb one, but looking at a
> sample of Filemaker that they make available, Filemaker does not feel
> like an RdB product like Access, for example.
>
> Is this correct or have I missed something critical? Candidly, trying
> to develop something significant, such as an integrated yacht club
> administrative application that would use many RdB features, looks
> almost impossible using the tools they offer
>
> John Baker
>


The perception of FM not being relational, especially looking at the
templates and demo files, is possibly due to the persistance of repeat
fields.

If FMI dumped these, it would save a lot of time wasted on integrating
what many see as a primitive element, into successive pseudo-
generations. Time and resources which could be allocated to a number of
more fundamental, development areas. The presence of such elements,
allows neophytes to build simple db's quickly, but distracts the focus,
and learning curve, from things relational.

Chris

Re: Is filemake a Relational Data base System?

In article , Chris Brown
wrote:

> JHB wrote:
> > I know the topic sounds like a really dumb one, but looking at a
> > sample of Filemaker that they make available, Filemaker does not feel
> > like an RdB product like Access, for example.
> >
> > Is this correct or have I missed something critical? Candidly, trying
> > to develop something significant, such as an integrated yacht club
> > administrative application that would use many RdB features, looks
> > almost impossible using the tools they offer
>
> The perception of FM not being relational, especially looking at the
> templates and demo files, is possibly due to the persistance of repeat
> fields.
>
> If FMI dumped these, it would save a lot of time wasted on integrating
> what many see as a primitive element, into successive pseudo-
> generations. Time and resources which could be allocated to a number of
> more fundamental, development areas. The presence of such elements,
> allows neophytes to build simple db's quickly, but distracts the focus,
> and learning curve, from things relational.

All true, but FileMaker can't simply remove them because so many people
do use them (rightly or wrongly - in some cases they are handy). The
problem is many people use them for completely the wrong reasons and
get themselves into trouble later.

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

Re: Is filemake a Relational Data base System?

Helpful Harry wrote:

> > The perception of FM not being relational, especially looking at the
> > templates and demo files, is possibly due to the persistance of repeat
> > fields.

> All true, but FileMaker can't simply remove them because so many people
> do use them (rightly or wrongly - in some cases they are handy)

I use them as range parameters for parsing fixed length formats of
different kinds, and it's a very efficient way.
--
www.D-L-S.org