Log in to create and rate content, and to follow, bookmark, and share content with other members. Not a member? Join Now!

Custom Function Libraries

Idea created by koschier-it on Nov 16, 2016

Comment • 5

Active

Score7

+1 more

I'd like to have a FileMaker Database function as a Library for my Custom Functions:

- The Functions are not imported but the Database File is referenced in the External Datasources Dialog

- Custom Functions referenced will show up with filename.functionname as their function name in Calculation Dialogs

- Custom Functions can be shared for referencing, hidden (shared hidden - not showing up in the Calculation dialogs) or forbidden (not shared)

So that we can easily distribute, update and sell Custom Functions to Customers and other developers without the need for our customers to buy FM Advanced

Tobias Liebhart

Head Of Software Development

Koschier IT-Outsourcing

5 Comments

koschier-it Nov 17, 2016 12:59 AM
@jbante, Johan Hedman
I'd appreciate that if you down-vote to at least explain why you think this is a bad idea.

Thanks
Tobias
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
beverly @ koschier-it on Nov 17, 2016 4:51 AM
perhaps this idea is a duplicate (or nearly so) to other requests for custom functions revision? have you searched the Ideas space for these?
this one didn't get favorable voting either:
- https://community.filemaker.com/ideas/1616there may be more...
beverly

p.s. I would like to see revision of the CF's to allow sharing, if not only within my solutions (multiple files), but also among developers. but there are websites with many "libraries" of these.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
koschier-it @ beverly on Nov 17, 2016 5:58 AM
The thing is, the idea you linked to is much more complicated to do and includes 2 different ideas to begin with.

My idea is basically trivial to implement, frees us from having to import and maintain custom functions in multiple files, allows the use of a FileMaker DB as a place for defines (as in C++ or equivalent) for type safety and enables us to update them in a deployed solution without seeing to have FMPA on hand.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
beverly @ koschier-it on Nov 17, 2016 6:13 AM
the term 'trivial' makes me shudder. how do you know that changes to the FM engine to make this so is "trivial"?

the other idea may be more complicated. that doesn't mean they are not similar...

clear definitions in the Idea space help other developers vote and the engineers at FMI to consider. the right to NOT vote (or vote down) don't necessarily need a reply (of why).

beverly
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
koschier-it @ beverly on Nov 17, 2016 9:15 AM
You are right, ist is not necessary to explain a downvote, but totally appreciated. Because otherwise I don't understand why people think it is a bad idea.
I've brought forth this Idea years ago to a FM Developer at the Salzburg FM Konferenz and he thought it a good idea and that no-one suggested it to him ever and told me to write it to his email address (which I did). Since nothing ever happened (and I got no reply) I thought I repost it here.

I wrote why I would want it and would be glad to hear why people would NOT want it (as opposed to not voting and not caring).

As for trivial, no, I don't know of the internals of FileMaker as a Program, but coming from a C++, Java, Objective-C Background and considering the way plugins work I would be surprised if it would be difficult to implement, and if not shared for Bfs would be the default, it would be easily backwards compatible.

Thanks, and I don't mean to be rude or insulting in any way
Tobias
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions

Incoming Links

Comment on 'Update Multiple Custom Functions'

Custom Function Libraries

Related Content

Recommended Content

Incoming Links