Last year FileMaker rolled out their new Product Ideas submission section. There were 820 submissions and many users also voted on the features that they would like to see the most. Is it possible to see which feature requests were added to FileMaker 15?
It is likely none that were specifically added to the submissions (unless already on the list to add) as development on 15 was probably started and features/functions set before this facility went live.
True! I saw NO mention (or promise) that Ideas were for the Next version (or even the version after that). However, ideas can help sometime in the future. The Ideas can give the engineers a general scope of what may be needed, if not specifically used. I know the ideas helped me think in different ways of how I believe I use FileMaker and what possibilities are out there.
beverly
As far as I can see they realized three ...
- scrolling with the scroll wheel on Windows doesn´t scroll the record anymore
- full screen mode is supported now
- masked field display
You can calculate yourself how many versions and years we need, to see all expectations fulfilled, if FMI keeps THIS speed.
I´ll be watching that from the graveyard.
I think there are a few others, and maybe a few that were partially addressed...
Slow Query Log appears to addressed with the new FMS "Top call statistics logging". I'm actual very excited about the help this should provide for heavily loaded servers.
Also, there is progress with SSL support including wildcard and intermediate certificates.Part of Mainstream SSL Features
Also, be mindful that the feature set for 15 was set a long time ago. Before the Product Ideas space was even setup.
I would expect to see many, many more addressed over the next few years...and I fully expect to see several of them that never make it into the product.
What really counts IMHO is how many from the top 20, sorted by score, made it.
May I make an educated guess? None.
Education is really important. We'd still be on trees picking fruits without it.
15 feels like a much need bug fix. I think there is only one new function added. Still too many old dialogs and difference in appearance and actions.
I am available for Layout and Design Czar and if hired everyone would find a much nicer interface. Please forward this...
This is an interesting screenshot given the recent roadmap webinar. I count 5 of the top 7 in that (somewhat out of date) list that were fully or partially addressed in the roadmap. JSON functions is a big one, as its intrinsically useful and also gives us native parameter passing.
Let me applaud:
On my MacPlus in 1985 an import would take a very noticeable time.
On my Toshiba laptop using 15 an import seems almost instantaneous (not a million records).
The new script editor is a real improvement after the relearning time.
After the tragedy of renaming a field or table in FoxPro and having to manualy search every script to replace the changes, the ability to simply rename a script or table or field and have FileMaker deal with it is absolutely wonderful.
If you've never written a DOS command line or a 256 character FoxBase script step, you cannot fully appreciate FileMaker's editor.
FileMaker did fix the problems experienced in its first attempts to take photos with the iPhone camera. Now it works as it should in a loop.
The tools for aligning objects and sizing them are fantastic (with the exception of using the shift or control key to move 5 or 10 spaces rather than just one).
Anchors finally work correctly but need a few added ideas such as resizing parts based on the parts to the right so that they don't all bunch up.
And the finally applause is for FileMaker raising the prices to astronomical levels for Server so as to drive out any newcomers those who took advantage of its low cost in the past. This will definitely enhance the ability of wealthy corporations to overpower individuality.
Question: what is meant by native multiple parameter.
I use List ("*", "*", "*", "*") and set variable to GetValues get(scriptparameter); x
Or I can use
Set variable x(1)
set variable x(2)
...
set variable x(n)
or
Field a
& PP & Field B
etc
It's usually taken to mean named parameters or arguments that can be accessed in the style of GetValue even when they contain ¶ characters. Being able to encode and pass JSON data into a script is a good enough implementation of native multiple parameter passing for me.
I found a glitch in GetValue
My List parameter is List( layouttype ; findvalue ; sortchoice )
List ( "Report" ; "" ; "All" ) as a parameter results in
Report
All
Which doesn't work with my set var which expects 3 values. Sort should be val3 not val2.
So I have to use List ( "Report" ; "*" ; "All" ) or other placeholder for the empty value.
Why would that be a glitch in GetValue()?
If at all, it's a glitch in List(), where you could argue that a placeholder argument to substitute empty elements might be useful.
Yes, certainly not a GetValue issue. I find the behavior of List a help more often than a hinderance.
I don't see this as a glitch at all. List ( ) works well for trimming a list of empty values. That would be a very big change to make, I think, at this point. Since I've see a LOT of code where people use List ( ) to trim a list of empty values.
I was so pleased to see that one make it in.
That is not a glitch. It auto-trims blank values. If you were to pass them like this without using list it would work the way you think.
$value = a
$value2 =
$value3 = C
if you use list ($value ; $value2 ; $value3) it will trim out the blank line
if you do $value & ¶ & $value2 & ¶ & $value3
it will work exactly as you intended.
This is documented behaviour. List() has always dropped empty values.
Its a glitch in both, actually.
List for not producing the line with no value other than a paragraph and get value for not knowing this happened. I mean, if a function is not smart enough to know what I intend, what good is it?
However, if you use list to point at a field...
List(
field a
; fieldb
;....
;fieldN
)
And one of those fields is empty then getvalue will fail to produce a result that is correct...
Well, one I suggested, probably amongst others, is in there, and I'm pleased.
Now, when you are in deep in a series of dialogue boxes and you choose a script you can access and edit that script directly from there. A great time and irritation saver. They have been clever too as you can only edit that script - one is not in the full Script Workspace though all its aids are there.
What I would like now is for them to add something like that to script triggers i.e. create a named object linked to a procedure (a script that by another name). Why? Saves cluttering the scripts list every time one uses a trigger.