Warning: FileMaker 7 and ODBC

On Oct 5, 2004, at 7:48 AM, Rick Kent wrote:

> Warning to anyone considering upgrading from FileMaker 6 to FileMaker
> 7, for a system using a FileMaker Server: You can no longer share
> your served database tables via ODBC and a local client. This is not
> publicized.

It's also terribly difficult to find OBDC clients for Filemaker to pull
its data from common database formats, let alone to actively share some
data with a SQL-type database.

I've been looking into MySQL-based solutions to replace some of my
Filemaker databases since they are more accessible and scalable. iList
Studio is a pretty nifty melding of Filemaker-type ease of use and a
MySQL back-end.

<http://www.lakewoodstudios.com/iliststudio/index.html>

--Nik

On 10/5/04 at 6:48 AM, RickKentMaverickLabel.Com (Rick Kent) wrote:

> Warning to anyone considering upgrading from FileMaker 6 to FileMaker
> 7, for a system using a FileMaker Server: You can no longer share
> your served database tables via ODBC and a local client. This is not
> publicized.
>
> <http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=07587>

I have to admit being puzzled by the angry tone of this post. I can
understand being unhappy and upset that a capability you depended on
wasn't added to FileMaker 7. (And since FM7 was a complete ground-up
rewrite, from what I understand, that's the way you have to look at it;
it wasn't a case of a capability in FM6 being deleted from FM7, it's a
capability in FM6 not being added in when they built a new code base for
FM7.) What I don't really understand is the tone of moral outrage, which
seems to assume the worst motives on the part of FileMaker Inc., when
other motives are at least possible - even plausible.

[Well, even if an upgrade is a complete rewrite, if features disappear in the process, people have a right to be disappointed. It's one thing if the company declares it a different product and renames it (as happened with PageMaker and InDesign, for instance), but when it's just a major version upgrade, the loss of an existing feature can be a big deal. Users shouldn't be expected to understand such a loss on the basis of the amount of code that changed underneath the hood. -Adam]

> We have a FileMaker system, which relies on a FileMaker Server and
> multiple FileMaker clients. One of the critical points in our
> workflow uses ODBC to let our UPS shipping computer draw data from a
> FileMaker Client, which in turn is drawing its data from our
> FileMaker server. This is working great in Version 6.

This is a cool idea, and it's something that could be useful in the
workflow of our FileMaker system, if I knew how to put it together.
However, to be honest, it's not something I even realized was possible,
let alone knew how to do; I'm not sure how many other people realized it
was possible, either. Also, the idea of indirectly serving the data
(i.e. serving data that another source serves to you, instead of serving
the data directly at the original source) seems both fragile and a
little kludgy.

> We thought this problem might have been a limitation of the demo
> version. But after searching all their knowledge bases, and after an
> hour on the phone waiting for their sales department to answer, we
> finally broke down and paid the $3 per minute for their paid tech
> support to tell us that:
>
> A. Client sharing of a served database via ODBC is no longer
> supported in 7.

I honestly can't say I'm surprised; as I said, it sounds like a somewhat
kludgy thing to begin with, and with the massive reworking of the way
FM7 operates, it certainly seems plausible that it would have been
difficult or impossible to include it. (Disclaimer: I Am Not A FileMaker
Engineer. :) I'm at most a mid-level FileMaker user who can design
moderately complex database systems.)

> B. ODBC serving of a shared database is available directly from the
> server only with FileMaker Server 7 Advanced edition, which is a
> $2500 product versus a $1000 product for the regular server.

This is annoying. Not so much the difference in functionality, as I
think it makes sense to have a cheaper version for companies that only
need internal FM serving to FM clients, versus people who need to serve
data to a variety of external formats like the Web and ODBC. But I think
the price for standard FM7 Server is too high if it's going to be FM
services only with an Advanced version for other services, and I think
the price difference between regular and Advanced is also too high.

> C. Even if we wanted to pay the difference (which we did not), that
> ODBC sharing feature was currently only available in the PC version
> of FileMaker Server 7 Advanced, and not in the Mac version. (So much
> for their Apple roots.)

This is also annoying, although there may be a reason for it; I seem to
remember reports in the last year or two about significant issues
getting ODBC running under OS X. Anyone else remember details on this?

> I find it hard to believe that a company could remove such a major
> modern database function from a product without making it very clear
> that it was doing so.

Here's part of where I disagree. I don't consider client sharing of a
served database via ODBC to be 'such a major modern database function,'
since I've never heard it was possible and I can't remember mention of
anyone else using it. (Disclaimer again: I don't participate in any
FileMaker-specific forums, though I follow FileMaker discussion on more
general Mac sites like Macintouch.) Sure, I can understand being unhappy
that functionality you depended on isn't there anymore, but I don't
think you can generalize your needs to the entire FileMaker userbase.

And again, it's not 'removing' a function, since this was a completely
rewritten code base; with FM7, they were taking something brand-new and
making it act like the old program. Every behavior of the old program
that was wanted in the new program had to be explicitly added in. Since
as far as I can tell the behavior you were using wasn't documented (see
below) - and my guess from that is that it wasn't deliberate behavior,
but a side-effect of the way ODBC serving was implemented in FM6 -
calling it something they deliberately removed is a bit much.

> So not only are we out the money spent for the day and a half of our
> outside tech time to upgrade our system, try to figure out the
> problem, and then have to go back to where we were. To add insult to
> injury we had to pay their tech support people about $30 just to be
> told what they should have made clear in their documentation.

Again, I'm not sure this is a fair complaint. Was the ability to
indirectly serve/'double-serve' data from a server-hosted file even
documented to begin with? I'm looking at the FileMaker Pro 5.5 help file
(we never moved to FM 6, the added features didn't seem worth it for our
system) right now. It does not say it's possible for a client to serve
ODBC data from a server-hosted database. If anything, I'd have guessed
it wasn't possible, from the caveat they put in about not serving data
from a related database. (If it was explicitly documented in FM6, mea
culpa.)

It's certainly fair to ding FileMaker Inc. for
vague/incomplete/non-specific documentation, and I've cursed them for it
several times myself. But I don't think it's fair to complain that they
didn't document the absence of functionality that wasn't documented to
begin with. If something wasn't documented and I had to figure out the
behavior myself via experimentation, then I try *not* to assume that the
behavior will remain the same with a new version - especially when it's
a major ground-up rewrite. If you decide to build a system that depends
on functionality that isn't documented, well, caveat fabricator.

> At least we did not buy the upgrade and be forced to try to get our
> money back. But this should serve as a warning to anyone considering
> the upgrade to 7. There may be other features FileMaker has decided
> to cut out lurking in the shadows, which you might discover only
> after you have spent all the time trying to install the upgrade. At
> the very least, do not buy the upgrades without thoroughly installing
> and testing the demos first.

I agree completely with the advice, if not the slant it's cast in. *Any*
time you go through a version upgrade for something like this, you
should do a thorough job of testing and making sure everything works,
before trying to set up the new system. I did it when we moved from FM
Server 3/Client 4 to Server/Client 5, and you'd better believe I'll be
doing a lot of testing before trying to move to FM7.

Travis Butler
tbutlermac.com

ODBC connectivity, especially FileMaker’s lack of ability to use data from other sources without importing it into FileMaker first, is a key and critical flaw in FileMaker and its adoption into the very market FileMaker is targeting. Workgroups inside corporations have data stored in other locations (SQL servers) that FileMaker cannot easily use. Not that I care for the program, but Access provides this natively.

I suspect the ODBC issues have more to do with OS X not having intrinsic ODBC support (it needs it quickly) and FileMaker deciding not to create its own ODBC infrastructure, which is a good decision that should be commended. Since Windows has ODBC, FM Windows has ODBC. When/if OS X gets ODBC, FM Mac should get this ability as well.

Nevertheless, FileMaker’s decision to keep ODBC functions exclusive to FM Advanced Server are clearly an attempt to force sales of Advanced Server and ensure there’s no low cost way to serve FM databases on the Web or interact with other significant databases without their most expensive server product. The Server product should host FM files, serve the files to the Web, and connect to other data sources. Advanced Server functions should have been part of Server in the last version and they should have certainly fixed that with this version.

Any FileMaker Server purchase is an additional purchase in their target market of corporate workgroups. As such, it's scrutinized by corporate MIS guys. At $1,000, you might squeak by. At $2,500, there's just no way they're going to swallow it. This is an extremely unfortunate miscalculation on their part. They’ll get some sales, but they’ve done more to alienate their biggest potential market than they realize. It’s too bad – it’s an incredible product in so many ways.

And if you didn't know ODBC functions were in previous versions, you're obviously creating stand alone solutions. There are lots of nice stand alone solutions, but in many companies, stuff needs to integrate and communicate. ODBC is absolutely essential. And most stand alone solutions could benefit from the understanding that comes with the challenges of connecting to other data sources.

Rick rqcmac.com

We are just now upgrading from FMP 6.0 to FMP 8.5 and I am running into this same error. I have contacted FileMaker to see if they cahnged the functionality in 8.5 to allow an ODBC connection to draw from a FileMaker Client which in turn draws data from the FileMaker Server. If anyone has found a solution, I would greatly appreciate the help.