I'm using FMPA 8, and have built a pretty complex solution.

I attempt to use the Instant Web publishing, but the functionality is totally sub-par (items in the wrong place, portal fields that don't show up, etc).

Does this improve in the Custom or Advanced Web Publishing? Is there a way to test it out before taking the $2k+ plunge?

Nate

FileMaker's Instant Web Publishing is essentially the same if you host from the client (for testing) or from Server Advanced (for deployment).

The weird placement etc. you're seeing *is* IWP and its why we make IWP specific interface files like our Instant Web Publishing Module instead of trying to use the same layout for IWP and for FileMaker client.

What Server Advanced gets you is the ability to use Custom Web Publishing, or to use something like FXphp instead of IWP. However neither of these other technologies translate your existing layouts to the web like IWP does.

Hope that helps.

So what I'm hearing you say, is that if we want to depoly our solution to the web for remote access and use, we'd have to have a completely separate solution developed specifically for web use. What resources would tell me:

1. What to change about our current solution so that we'll retain all functionality on the web (other than the scripts that are not web compatible, of course)

Then, I would imagine that this web solution would reference the main data files that the client version does as well?

I was under the impression that the IWP would just "work", as FM's marketing suggests it will. Big bummer, unless creating the web version is not all that difficult????

I think IWP does, "just work" for very simple solutions. But not for "a pretty complex solution" such as you've described. Aside from the graphic differences you've discovered (things aren't in precisely the same place, and fields need more room around them) there are no custom dialogs in IWP so you have to work around anything that would throw up a dialog to a user. Getting a file optimized for IWP basically just involved a lot of trial and error.

You might checkout the IWP podcast from 5/16. We hit on a lot of the things you'll want to look out for when making something for IWP.

Nate wrote:Then, I would imagine that this web solution would reference the main data files that the client version does as well?

Right. The IWP version would be a separate interface file which pointed to the same data file.

John,

Thanks for the link to the podcast on IWP.

You guys did a great job of covering the subject, and I felt a whole lot better hearing you pros discussing the matter sharing the same frustrations that I have on the subject (in the context of more complex solutions).

I'm looking into Citrix right now, but based on the fact that I had to send an "inquiry" to a sales staff I'm a bit nervous about the price...

The frustrating thing is, we really only need remote access for one, occasionally two people. (that would be me, mostly)

I developed the solution for our company, but am off site most of the time. I'm also the CEO, so I'd like access to the entire solution. With the complexity of the solution, IWP just isn't viable.

I'm hoping Citrix will be my answer...

Thanks as always for your excellent insight.

Nate

Yea. Dan does a great job with those podcasts.

Nate wrote:The frustrating thing is, we really only need remote access for one, occasionally two people.

Well if that's the case, you could take a different approach and get a couple low-end PCs. Buy once for each person who needs remote access and load VNC on the machines. Then each user who has such a PC has a dedicated machine to run FileMaker on when they're out of the office. (VNC is free, by the way.)

You can't print this way, because you're really "in" the office on that dedicated PC, but you can print PDFs to that machine's desktop and then transfer them to your machine at home or on the road using something like Skype send file.

Working over VNC takes a little getting used to as its not the fastest thing in the world (but its faster than rendering complicated things in IWP).

HTH

I tried Timbuktu, but the latency was too annoying...

Thanks again!

Nate