AnsweredAssumed Answered

IWP and containers - options?

Question asked by Mike_Mitchell Expert on Jun 12, 2012
Latest reply on Jun 12, 2012 by abridgesolution

Good day. Did you ever notice how things bite you just about the time you're ready to go to beta testing?


Having done very little development for IWP, I never noticed this little blurb in the IWP guide:


"Web users can only enter data in text, number, date, time, or timestamp fields; they cannot enter or modify container field objects like images, sounds, and QuickTime files."


Oh, boy. One of the requirements (requests) for the current project is document management, and I was eagerly anticipating using external secure storage. The client is a small nonprofit, and want to use IWP to avoid buying FM licenses. But container storage and retrieval through IWP isn't supported - which, unfortunately, I didn't know going in. I can think of only a few ways around this - none of them good:


1) Buy SuperContainer. While I love SuperContainer, it's not a good fit in this situation. One, I want to leave the solution open to resale as a vertical market solution, with the option to use peer-to-peer sharing (despite how we all feel about it). Two, it involves a cost - which defeats the purpose of not having to buy something extra (yes, it's considerably cheaper, but still). Three, we're going to be on a Windows platform here, and one of the reasons I wanted to use version 12's container features was to avoid the issues we've had here at work with Java patching. (It seems every time we patch the JRE, I have some number of machines that decide to take a powder.)


2) Do it using CWP. Sure, I can do that, and it avoids the cost of SuperContainer (as well as the dependence on Java), but it still ties me to a server. Plus, I'd have to code it and figure out how to secure the documents (which may include personal information). Still suboptimal.


3) Have the client install one or two FileMaker licenses and upload all documents through that. Better, but we're into more cost and the IWP users still can't access the documents. Suboptimal again.


4) Have everyone buy FileMaker licenses and ditch IWP altogether. The best option technologically, but it means licensing costs that the client just doesn't want to pay.


5) Some other option that the really smart IWP jocks on this forum come up with that will save my bacon.


Love to hear what everyone thinks.