Shared Database Solutions

On or about 3/4/05 6:46 AM, thus spake "petichokmyrealbox.com"
<petichokmyrealbox.com>:

> I recently became the secretary of a community chorus and we're going
> through "membership growing pains." I'm trying to collect all the
> membership records into a centralized database but am getting
> resistance from other officers who don't want to lose their ready
> access to the data when it was just on their own computer.
>
> Does anybody know of any cross-platform, SQL-compliant database we
> could use and swap files back and forth?

If anyone in the group has just one computer that can be a server (it's on
all the time, can be seen from the Internet, and has a constant IP number),
I'd say MySQL is the way to go. It's fast and easy and it's simple to
consult the data using the Terminal. It is absolutely standard and well
documented, and the data can be exported as a huge textfile, so it will
never be "trapped". m.

--
matt neuburg, phd = matttidbits.com, http://www.tidbits.com/matt/
pantes anthropoi tou eidenai oregontai phusei
AppleScript: the Definitive Guide! NOW SHIPPING...! (Finally.)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005571/somethingsbymatt
Subscribe to TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.tidbits.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: petichokmyrealbox.com [mailto:petichokmyrealbox.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:47 AM
> To: tidbits-talktidbits.com
> Subject: Shared Database Solutions
>
>
> I recently became the secretary of a community chorus and we're going
> through "membership growing pains." I'm trying to collect all the
> membership records into a centralized database but am getting
> resistance from other officers who don't want to lose their ready
> access to the data when it was just on their own computer.
>
> Does anybody know of any cross-platform, SQL-compliant database we
> could use and swap files back and forth? Or is there another solution
> that would allow us to all access the same file? We don't
> have a whole
> lot of money (if any) to purchase software or hosting solutions. I
> don't want to make it too complicated because I fear what will happen
> when I graduate college and leave the organization with all their
> records "trapped" in a database nobody's too familiar with.

Multiple copies of a database is asking for trouble. The answer is a mysql
database with a php (or whatever) frontend on a cheap webhost. There will be
no problem of not being able to retrieve the data as long as you backup the
server to someplace else (in case the hosting provider goes out of
business). Any kind of database will be problematic when it comes to the
issue of handing its management from one person to another within a
non-technical organization. Security can be handled by a simple .htaccess
file. The main stumbling block is probably designing the database and
front-end but there's also software that can help with that. It sounds like
a fairly simple database.

At 10:10 -0800 4/3/05, Matt Neuburg wrote:
>On or about 3/4/05 6:46 AM, thus spake "petichokmyrealbox.com"
><petichokmyrealbox.com>:
>
>> I recently became the secretary of a community chorus and we're going
>> through "membership growing pains." I'm trying to collect all the
>> membership records into a centralized database but am getting
>> resistance from other officers who don't want to lose their ready
>> access to the data when it was just on their own computer.
>>
>> Does anybody know of any cross-platform, SQL-compliant database we
>> could use and swap files back and forth?
>
>If anyone in the group has just one computer that can be a server (it's on
>all the time, can be seen from the Internet, and has a constant IP number),
>I'd say MySQL is the way to go. It's fast and easy and it's simple to
>consult the data using the Terminal. It is absolutely standard and well
>documented, and the data can be exported as a huge textfile, so it will
>never be "trapped". m.

Or find a hosting solution which offers MySQL, like Rochen.com:
$9.95/month for LOTS of services. The downside is that the person who
follows you will need to know how to manage a Linux Control Panel,
which is not for the faint of heart......


--
Dan Hinckley, Gingins, Switzerland
home: dbhsuiattle.org
work: dahhq.iucn.org; http://iucn.org/
the Suiattle: 48º 19' N, 121º 32' W

What format are these records in already? What sort of access do people
need to it?

A perfectly good option is to just get a host that offers WebDAV and
throw an Excel file with all your members onto a shared drive. People
can open it, but WebDAV has built in controls to keep two people from
accessing files at the same time.

.Mac offers this and so do various other hosts. Dreamhost.com, which
has been mentioned before, is a good lower-priced option.

--Nik

On Mar 4, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Nik wrote:

> What format are these records in already? What sort of access do
> people need to it?

The records are currently in a Filemaker 5 database that I fire up in
Classic now and then to make changes. I like the database approach (as
opposed to the spreadsheet approach) because queries and reports are
supported with greater precision. I'm working on expanding from just a
current membership listing to include past members and concert and
program information (i.e. multiple tables). People will definitely need
read access, and some could use write-access to update a couple of
fields (such as the treasurer updating a "Dues" field).

> A perfectly good option is to just get a host that offers WebDAV and
> throw an Excel file with all your members onto a shared drive. People
> can open it, but WebDAV has built in controls to keep two people from
> accessing files at the same time.

That does sound like a good idea. However, it also sounds like it might
be complicated to set up on the client-side for someone who has little
experience with computers (i.e. one of the choir officers who didn't
know how to use tab-stops).

Thanks for your thoughts so far!

--Peter Bird

On Mar 4, 2005, at 2:55 PM, petichokmyrealbox.com wrote:

> The records are currently in a Filemaker 5 database that I fire up in
> Classic now and then to make changes. I like the database approach (as
> opposed to the spreadsheet approach) because queries and reports are
> supported with greater precision. I'm working on expanding from just a
> current membership listing to include past members and concert and
> program information (i.e. multiple tables). People will definitely
> need read access, and some could use write-access to update a couple
> of fields (such as the treasurer updating a "Dues" field).


Sounds to me like you're on the cusp of drastically expanding your
business. Your desire to do this "on the cheap" makes me think that
you're best off with an off-the-shelf product that does what you want.
Shared hosting and whatnot is available with many such solutions.

A quick Google search came up with the following professionally hosted
solutions:

<http://www.xaraonline.com/home/applications/mem_home.htm>
<http://www.goclubexe.com/>
<http://www.123signup.com/>

Alternately, you could fairly readily bring an FMP5-based solution up
to Filemaker 7. Hosting becomes complicated and/or expensive, but in
the long term you might end up paying less than you would with
commercial software if you're capable of handling the development
in-house. I've found some FMP7-based hosting solutions running for as
little as $40/mo. for a small quantity of users.

--Nik

on 3/4/05 9:46 AM, petichokmyrealbox.com at petichokmyrealbox.com wrote:

> I recently became the secretary of a community chorus and we're going
> through "membership growing pains." I'm trying to collect all the
> membership records into a centralized database but am getting
> resistance from other officers who don't want to lose their ready
> access to the data when it was just on their own computer.
>
> Does anybody know of any cross-platform, SQL-compliant database we
> could use and swap files back and forth? Or is there another solution
> that would allow us to all access the same file? We don't have a whole
> lot of money (if any) to purchase software or hosting solutions. I
> don't want to make it too complicated because I fear what will happen
> when I graduate college and leave the organization with all their
> records "trapped" in a database nobody's too familiar with.

Convert to FileMaker Pro. It is EXACTLY the application to solve this kind
of problem at this kind of organization. You can share a centralized
database across all the desktops without a server. It is Mac and PC
compatible and easy to adapt, easy to learn and easy to customize.

***********************************************************************
Kevin J. McAllister, President/CEO
inRESONANCE ... Ideas that resonate
kevininresonance.com | Professional CMS websites for K-12
http://www.inresonance.com | Strategic consulting, training
413-587-0236x13 FSA Member since 1994| Education database solutions

> On Mar 4, 2005, at 2:55 PM, petichokmyrealbox.com wrote:
>
>> The records are currently in a Filemaker 5 database that I fire up in
>> Classic now and then to make changes. I like the database approach (as
>> opposed to the spreadsheet approach) because queries and reports are
>> supported with greater precision. I'm working on expanding from just a
>> current membership listing to include past members and concert and
>> program information (i.e. multiple tables). People will definitely
>> need read access, and some could use write-access to update a couple
>> of fields (such as the treasurer updating a "Dues" field).

Peter:

I guess I don't understand your dilemma. It sounds to me like either you or
the organization doesn't understand fully how to use FileMaker Pro. All you
are lacking to do what you are requesting is training.

You don't need a web server, upgrade to FMP7, or anything else. FileMaker 5
can be used with OSX, just get the OSX version and use your existing
license. You can share that on the network with a matrix of passwords that
lets different people see/edit different things, and you can webify the
database in a quick simple way by turning on Instant Web Publishing (IWP)
which is built in.

Granted, IWP is pretty basic, but it sounds like your needs are fairly
modest. My suggestion is that you ask your question on an FMP list
<fmprolists.blueworld.com> and people there will steer you to getting what
you need done.

***********************************************************************
Kevin J. McAllister, President/CEO
inRESONANCE ... Ideas that resonate
kevininresonance.com | Professional CMS websites for K-12
http://www.inresonance.com | Strategic consulting, training
413-587-0236x13 FSA Member since 1994| Education database solutions

On 7 Mar 2005, at 05:46 :27, Kevin McAllister wrote:
> Convert to FileMaker Pro. It is EXACTLY the application to solve this
> kind
> of problem at this kind of organization. You can share a centralized
> database across all the desktops without a server. It is Mac and PC
> compatible and easy to adapt, easy to learn and easy to customize.

It's also very expensive for what you get and locks you in to a
proprietary solution. There are reasons, I suppose, to prefer
FileMaker Pro, but in almost all cases a *mumble*SQL will serve you
just as well, be cheaper, easier to upgrade, and in the long run,
easier to administer.

I've used Filemaker. I am not a fan. i am especially not a fan of the
price points an the upgrade price points. $1000 for FM Server (and you
would need Server in this case to serve the database to the rest of the
office) is not a good deal in my mind.

on 3/7/05 5:11 PM, Google Kreme at gkremegmail.com wrote:

> On 7 Mar 2005, at 05:46 :27, Kevin McAllister wrote:
>> Convert to FileMaker Pro. It is EXACTLY the application to solve this
>> kind
>> of problem at this kind of organization. You can share a centralized
>> database across all the desktops without a server. It is Mac and PC
>> compatible and easy to adapt, easy to learn and easy to customize.
>
> It's also very expensive for what you get and locks you in to a
> proprietary solution. There are reasons, I suppose, to prefer
> FileMaker Pro, but in almost all cases a *mumble*SQL will serve you
> just as well, be cheaper, easier to upgrade, and in the long run,
> easier to administer.
>
> I've used Filemaker. I am not a fan. i am especially not a fan of the
> price points an the upgrade price points. $1000 for FM Server (and you
> would need Server in this case to serve the database to the rest of the
> office) is not a good deal in my mind.

As with most things...YMMV.

One important fact here - again due to lack of knowledge about FileMaker.
You don't need Filemaker server to serve FileMaker. Every copy of FileMaker
is a server in itself and can serve data to other Macs and PCs with
FileMaker.

Again, your mileage may vary...but for every 10 people who can program in
##SQL there are 5000 who know FileMaker. Setting up and office, sharing data
easily and leaving something for others to follow seems a lot easier in FMP.

I think it depends on whether you want to get down and dirty as a code
warrior. Maybe you see shareware/opensource as a good/free/easy way to
support a small office long term. To me, it is suicide. But again, YMMV.


***********************************************************************
Kevin J. McAllister, President/CEO
inRESONANCE ... Ideas that resonate
kevininresonance.com | Professional CMS websites for K-12
http://www.inresonance.com | Strategic consulting, training
413-587-0236x13 FSA Member since 1994| Education database solutions

There's also Panorama, a wonderful DB. Just now it has moved ahead to version V and its sharing technology hasn't caught up, but they're working on it assiduously and it should be out relatively soon.

Bill Conable OSU School of Music

On 08/03/2005, at 10:09 AM, Google Kreme wrote:

> I've used Filemaker. I am not a fan. i am especially not a fan of the
> price points an the upgrade price points. $1000 for FM Server (and you
> would need Server in this case to serve the database to the rest of the
> office) is not a good deal in my mind.
>

No actually you don't. Filemaker will quite happily do peer to peer
just fine. Also for non-networked versions you can do a free runtime
version.

Nick

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8.3.2005, space aliens observed kevin saying:
>Again, your mileage may vary...but for every 10 people who can
>program in ##SQL there are 5000 who know FileMaker. Setting up and
>office, sharing data easily and leaving something for others to
>follow seems a lot easier in FMP.

That certainly depends. Way back when in 2000, I was supposed to write a
FileMaker database for somebody. The solution was basically supposed to
contain customers and jobs, and it should have automatically generated
bills and payment reminders. I found FileMakers interface and
"programming language" to be way too confusing to create anything
useful. I eventually wrote the whole thing in a few days using MySQL and
PHP.

Creating a FileMaker solution is probably similar to programming in
AppleScript, which only seems to make sense to non-programmers :-)


>I think it depends on whether you want to get down and dirty as a
>code warrior. Maybe you see shareware/opensource as a good/free/easy
>way to support a small office long term. To me, it is suicide. But
>again, YMMV.

I'd be interested in learning why open source solutions would be suicide
for your business. I can see how Shareware would be a risk, since the
programmer(s) are (possibly) more likely to stop supporting the
application than bigger vendors are. But what exactly are the risks when
using open source software?

lucas

- --
"I just tipped over the ashtray."
  -- Moritz Winger

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2

iQA/AwUBQi2EkLXYdom/dB2cEQJG0QCeMkaWj6wp71M3uETdSXPbjsMECHoAoNx3
JXX04jUUd046ecjsZX0tYAat
=Utr/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Good evening,

On 7/3/05 at 4:46 AM -0800, Kevin McAllister <kevininresonance.com> wrote:

>on 3/4/05 9:46 AM, petichokmyrealbox.com at petichokmyrealbox.com wrote:
>
>> Does anybody know of any cross-platform, SQL-compliant database we
>> could use and swap files back and forth? Or is there another solution
>> that would allow us to all access the same file? We don't have a whole
>> lot of money (if any) to purchase software or hosting solutions. I
>> don't want to make it too complicated because I fear what will happen
>> when I graduate college and leave the organization with all their
>> records "trapped" in a database nobody's too familiar with.
>
>Convert to FileMaker Pro. It is EXACTLY the application to solve this kind
>of problem at this kind of organization. You can share a centralized
>database across all the desktops without a server. It is Mac and PC
>compatible and easy to adapt, easy to learn and easy to customize.

And if you decided you need both a FileMaker and SQL database you can use
something like fmSQL Synch to keep the info in both databases synchronized.

<http://www.garrison.com.au/products/fmsql_synch.html>

The current version only works with FileMaker versions 4-6, but the next
version is designed for use with FileMaker v7.


Charlie

--
   Charlie Garrison <garrisonzeta.org.au>
   PO Box 141, Windsor, NSW 2756, Australia

[I'm allowing this through, but let's try to avoid careening off into a debate about open source. That's a rat hole with no end. -Adam]


> >I think it depends on whether you want to get down and dirty as a
> >code warrior. Maybe you see shareware/opensource as a good/free/easy
> >way to support a small office long term. To me, it is suicide. But
> >again, YMMV.
>
> I'd be interested in learning why open source solutions would
> be suicide
> for your business. I can see how Shareware would be a risk, since the
> programmer(s) are (possibly) more likely to stop supporting the
> application than bigger vendors are. But what exactly are the
> risks when
> using open source software?

Suicide sounds like a major exaggeration but there are legitimate reasons
for "ordinary" people to be wary of the open source world.

Culture - you're a programmer so you probably already know places to go to
look for help with open source software and have the background to speak the
same language as they do. When the reply or documentation provided does not
explain an acronym, or the location of a program mentioned off-hand or a
step is skipped, you can probably fill in the blanks. Many can't. In this
instance, there are FileMaker forums which can be visited and they're much
more likely to be full of people just like the questioner and have solved
similar problems.

Command line - I don't know why, but anything done on the command line
strikes fear into the hearts of many. Except in the case of desktop GUI
software, most open source programs require going to the command line. A
corollary fear is text-based configuration files, even something as simple
as enabling PHP in the OS X Apache conf file can freak people out.

Co-mingling - (yes, a desperate attempt at maintaining the alliteration)
Wondrous things can be done using Apache-PHP-MySQL, my recommendation to the
original question was to use them on a cheap webhost (before I knew
FileMaker was already in use) but those are 3 entirely separate things and
you have to know something about them all to use them. To solve this problem
you have to know, FileMaker. That's it.

In the event of a security problem, you're much more likely to quickly see a
security patch from an open source project than FileMaker but A) it'll be a
lot harder to install B) may involve a level of understanding of how each
piece interoperates than most people possess.

On 3/8/05 at 11:07 AM, tidbitslkmc.ch (Lucas K. Mathis) wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8.3.2005, space aliens observed kevin saying:
> >Again, your mileage may vary...but for every 10 people who can
> >program in ##SQL there are 5000 who know FileMaker. Setting up and
> >office, sharing data easily and leaving something for others to
> >follow seems a lot easier in FMP.
>
> That certainly depends. Way back when in 2000, I was supposed to
> write a FileMaker database for somebody. The solution was basically
> supposed to contain customers and jobs, and it should have
> automatically generated bills and payment reminders. I found
> FileMakers interface and "programming language" to be way too
> confusing to create anything useful. I eventually wrote the whole
> thing in a few days using MySQL and PHP.

Right. Of course, how much experience did you have in programming in
general, and SQL/PHP specifically?

> Creating a FileMaker solution is probably similar to programming in
> AppleScript, which only seems to make sense to non-programmers :-)

Well, I'd consider myself once a programmer, since I've written native
Mac apps in TML Pascal back in the day. :) That said, I think that's
pretty close to the mark; Filemaker is mainly of interest to people who
are not locked into the procedural language mindset, or a developer
writing something that will be maintained by people who aren't
programmers.

Of course, the flip side is also true; procedural language-oriented DBMS
are mainly open to programmers, or people with the necessary mindset and
time to invest in becoming programmers. Database work is only one hat I
wear, and there's no way I could take the time to learn something like
MySQL, or even something much more GUI-oriented like 4D. (And I've tried
to learn 4D on more than one occasion.) Filemaker, OTOH, I was able to
pick up in the time I had available, and the jobs I've done with it have
been within its capabilities.

> >I think it depends on whether you want to get down and dirty as a
> >code warrior. Maybe you see shareware/opensource as a good/free/easy
> >way to support a small office long term. To me, it is suicide. But
> >again, YMMV.
>
> I'd be interested in learning why open source solutions would be
> suicide for your business. I can see how Shareware would be a risk,
> since the programmer(s) are (possibly) more likely to stop supporting
> the application than bigger vendors are. But what exactly are the
> risks when using open source software?

Because you're replacing dependency on one large vendor making
'proprietary database software' that's usable by ordinary people with
dependency on a DBMS guru who can make your 'open source database
software' into an actual solution you can use. After our company's
experience with a custom-written database system that only the developer
could maintain (which we replaced with a Filemaker-based system because
the developer refused to make it Y2K compliant), I know I'd rather trust
the large proprietary database software that I can actually understand
and use.

Travis Butler
tbutlermac.com

On Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 02:07 PM, Lucas K. Mathis wrote:
> Creating a FileMaker solution is probably similar to programming in
> AppleScript, which only seems to make sense to non-programmers :-)

Did you ever have to use FoxPro or Microsoft Access? The Spanish
Inquisition was more user friendly.

You're right about the non-programmer stuff, and even I, who can't even
count, can do AppleScript and Filemaker. I've never tried PHP or MySQL
- too terrifying.

Marilyn

On Mar 8, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Lucas K. Mathis wrote:

> I found FileMakers interface and
> "programming language" to be way too confusing to create anything
> useful. I eventually wrote the whole thing in a few days using MySQL
> and
> PHP.
>
> Creating a FileMaker solution is probably similar to programming in
> AppleScript, which only seems to make sense to non-programmers :-)

I wouldn't say that at all. Filemaker is a pretty darn good rapid
development environment for database applications. Compared to the
competition (Access, 4D, Panorama, Visual Basic, RealBasic), it leads
in ease of use and has some fairly unique functions that serve small
workgroups very well. It is not a PHP/SQL solution (though it is fairly
capable of working in a similar fashion, even with a PHP front end!),
but you can build a solution quickly with Filemaker that would take
substantially longer using PHP.

But it is not a programming language or environment. It has a fairly
robust scripting language and an extensive plug-in architecture that
lets it tread in the realm of "programming," but that's not what it
aims to be. While it serves roughly the same end-function of a
PHP/MySQL solution; it's more or less equivalent to comparing a
PHP-generated reporting tool with a MySQL back-end to an Excel
spreadsheet: Both give you some formatted numeric output, but they're
fairly different ways of approaching the same result.

The big downside with Filemaker, is that it's pretty pricey to host on
anything approaching a large scale (a server version capable of
publishing to the web will set a person back some $2,500!), and on a
really large scale some of its inherent inadequacies begin to creep in.
But for quick and dirty DB app development work, or for a small
workgroup/personal machine, it can be a really great development tool.

--Nik