Andy Hibbs

Classic Theme Replacement - Techniques

Discussion created by Andy Hibbs on Dec 5, 2018
Latest reply on Jan 14, 2019 by nickorr

I'd welcome comments here. As a company we have completed a couple of 'transformations' to 2 of our core products modifying every object on every layout to ensure they are within our own theme, including all buttons being replaced with button bars or the current button objects.


This work has taken weeks to months! The justification for this is that all new systems based on these core products will be supported by FileMaker Inc. as we're no longer using the Classic theme.


We also have a good number of legacy systems used by our clients that are all based on the Classic theme, some have been in use for nearly 20 years and others a couple of years. I've just run a DDR through Perception of one, which we've a meeting about this afternoon - the system is run purely on a LAN. The stats are:

  Layouts - 405

  Layout objects - 25,336

  Value lists - 146

  Scripts - 868

  Tables - 114

  Fields - 3936

  Relationships - 569

  Table occurrences - 708

  Custom functions - 81


The key question I'd welcome input from the community is that there are 2 methods we're aware of for updating these solutions:


1. As per our core products, change every layout to our theme and every object on every layout to be a style within our standard theme.


2. Duplicate each layout, delete all objects on the original layout, change the empty layout to our theme, then copy all layout objects from the duplicated layout back to the original.


In my simplistic view, both now conform to not using the Classic theme, but of course the second option has many, many styles on top of the base theme.


From our clients' point of view, the above system could be updated using option 2 in between 2 and 4 days. Using option 1. we're back to weeks and £/$/€1000s. Other than 'being supported by FileMaker', our client receives very little benefit for their investment for us to do this work, although we do explain that technology progresses and at times this type of thing has to happen.


Therefore, option 2. gets our vote for customers on a LAN using FileMaker in the pre-Internet traditional way, despite all the style overheads. As far as their budgets are concerned, it certainly gets our their votes as well.


I understand the technology and have sat in numerous FileMaker sessions since the release of v12, but here's my question: in practical and support terms what's wrong with this?


Many thanks in advance