Emulating FileMaker (was Re: jjSQL handlers)

[Bill Marriott]

Josh,

You're very welcome. I just want to elaborate on a couple things:

Josh Mellicker wrote
>> Good luck! All a FileMaker user has to do is click a checkbox and  their
>> database is multiuser.
>
> I should have said "multiuser worldwide from a fast server"... sorry!

You can make a database available worldwide from your home cable connection 
(I do it all the time with my 8M/768K line); you can also go with one of the 
larger hosting companies who have multiple OC3 connections. There's really 
no difference between the speed or accessibility of FileMaker database 
serving vs. MySQL database serving. The only difference is that MySQL is 
more "ubiquitous" given it is part of the "LAMP" platform that so many 
budget hosting companies use.

> I just did a tiny amount of research, and it seems Filemaker hosting  is 
> typically $20 - $100 per month per database, and has user limits  (like 20 
> users max). I will look into it more, but so far it does not  seem like a 
> good solution for a large scale project where several  hundred people 
> might be connected at once, it seems like the price  would be 
> astronomical.

Allow me to address this in-depth.

1) You'll find that the budget cPanel/LAMP providers also limit you, though 
their limitations are not as clearly spelled out. Some let you have only 1 
to 5 MySQL databases. Other limits have to do with bandwidth and disk space. 
Almost all shared hosting providers will shut you down for excessive CPU 
usage. Bottom line is, I really doubt that you'd be able to host a hundred 
concurrent users for $9.95/month.

Now, about FileMaker. The hosting providers are pretty much all running 
FileMaker Server 8 Advanced. This has the following limits:

- 125 databases
- 250 concurrent FileMaker client sessions
- 100 concurrent Instant Web Publishing sessions

Now, this at first glance seems to be fairly severe. However,

2) The database limit is not a "table" limit. Most users need only a single 
database, because each database can hold an essentially unlimited number of 
tables.

3) The FileMaker client sessions is an issue only for people who want to 
access the database using the FileMaker software. The context we're talking 
about here is Web access. So, yes, if you're distributing a solution based 
on the FileMaker software than only 250 at one time can be using it at once. 
This situation would mostly arise in corporate/vertical situations. But, if 
you look at the economies of this, once you get to this level of development 
you're probably not going to have 250 FileMaker clients. Rather, you're 
going to have a mix where there is a select number of FileMaker clients and 
the rest of the organization is accessing via some form of Web/Browser 
interface.

4) The Instant Web Publishing sessions also seem pretty limited, until you 
realize that reaching this number of simultaneous sessions is a challenge. 
Most FileMaker shared hosting services are able to max out their server's 
customers before they hit the IWP concurrent session limit. For example, a 
solution I have which serves a hospital of about 8500 staff is used daily 
but rarely has more than 30 concurrent IWP sessions at any given time. IWP, 
while it has the advantage of being the easiest and quickest way to get your 
FileMaker database on the Web, is not the most sophisticated or economical 
method once you get to scale. The main advantage of it is that your layouts, 
scripts, overall look-and-feel are the same as they are in FileMaker itself. 
This means you don't need to know any PHP, HTML, etc, to have *very* 
sophisticated database systems live online, instantly. The session limits 
are there because the server is essentially emulating a FileMaker client 
internally for each active web user.

5) IWP is just one way to get on the Web. FileMaker does not have these 
limits for its so-called "custom web publishing" options, which include 
XML/XSLT, PHP, and Lasso. These methods do not have "sessions." So, go ahead 
and build your DHTML site with Cascading Style Sheets and whatever you like. 
Break out your copy of Dreamweaver or whatever editor you prefer. You'll be 
able to talk with the FileMaker database quite easily without worrying about 
how many concurrent users you have. These are the same tools you would use 
to present an SQL database online. The difference is that you will be able 
to open up your copy of FileMaker to manage the database backend or 
prototype solutions anytime -- and enjoy its integrated development tools 
instead of cobbling together various utilities, running the SQL command 
line, or clicking through phpMyAdmin. In other words, in a comparison of 
MySQL/PHP vs. FileMaker/PHP, FileMaker still comes out on top in terms of 
rapid application development, because the PHP (et. al.) element is the same 
for both.

As you can see from ongoing hosting cost is not a factor for developing a 
FileMaker/PHP or FileMaker/XML/XSLT/CSS solution vs. LAMP. And it may not be 
an issue for hosting IWP or FileMaker-based clients, either.

> We are running about 30 - 35 MySQL databases on our dedicated server 
> currently, and have several hundred people using them at once, not  sure 
> if FileMaker can scale to that or beyond... we pay $150 monthly,  but have 
> unlimited MySQL databases with unlimited connections.

You are running a dedicated server from a hosting company for $150/month? 
Nice deal :) Were it me, I would probably go with a co-location deal where I 
provide the hardware and software and just pay for bandwidth. It will be 
more expensive up-front, but the monthly costs would be lower. My hosting 
company would give me 1U rackspace and ample bandwidth for about $40/month. 
I'm sure FileMaker could scale to that level of use via custom web 
publishing, and perhaps even IWP. It all depends on what "using them at 
once" means.

> I don't think Filemaker has the power that, for example, Trevor has  given 
> Revolution with the QT external where you can detect timecode  tracks in 
> QT movies, or copy and paste segments. I know this is  unusual, but our 
> customers are video producers so the apps I need to  build need to 
> manipulate media as well as data.

FileMaker has a well-documented plugin architecture as well. One certainly 
could write a plug-in to handle multimedia the way you're describing. 
Perhaps Trevor could repurpose his code for such a plugin and make a little 
more profit from it, or maybe someone has already written one :)

Best wishes on your efforts... if there were a tool that let me build/manage 
LAMP database-driven solutions as quickly, easily and neatly as a FileMaker 
solution, I'd sure buy it! Especially if it was based on Rev! But today I 
still don't have a decent table object and all the other stuff I mentioned 
in my earlier post I'd have to roll on my own. I've always thought that 
Claris should have somehow merged HyperCard and FileMaker when they had the 
chance. (How sweet would that marriage have been!)

Like I said, FileMaker is not always the best solution. I don't think you 
could run Amazon.com with it (though many large companies DO deploy massive 
solutions with FileMaker as the backend.) You definitely have more control 
over the user interface of any client application (executable). A 
Revolution-based solution that talks to a MySQL backend could well be more 
powerful in the end (after much more development work). I just want you to 
base your decision on accurate understandings.

So, have you downloaded your FileMaker 8 demo yet? :) By the way... have a 
visit to comp.databases.filemaker on UseNet. Good place to get lots of 
opinions on this stuff and pointers to even more resources.

Bill