3 Replies Latest reply on Jun 12, 2012 9:30 AM by abridgesolution

    IWP and containers - options?

    Mike_Mitchell

      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.

       

      Mike

        • 1. Re: IWP and containers - options?
          abridgesolution

          Mike

           

          How many concurrent users do you expect via IWP?

           

          Robert

          • 2. Re: IWP and containers - options?
            Mike_Mitchell

            Robert -

             

            Well, right now, it'll be 3 - 5. But again, this is being designed as a potential vertical market solution, so I have in mind to keep it open for hosting with either a provider or an onsite IT department. What I'd rather not do is force it to a server solution when it's not required; that might put off clients who don't want to spend $30 or $40 a month for a hosting service and don't have the capability to manage a server themselves.

             

            Thanks.

             

            Mike

            • 3. Re: IWP and containers - options?
              abridgesolution

              Mike,

               

               

               

              two different scenarios… possibly requiring two different perspectives

               

               

               

              1-      at this point you are attempting to solve financial issues with technical solutions…

               

              a.        I believe, you have exhausted possibilities with IWP as a doc management solution

               

              2-      even with 3-5 concurrent, it may be more than the non-server host computer can handle

               

              a.       IWP is resource intensive.

               

              3-      you may have browser issues on Windows machines that Mac machines don’t seem to have with Chrome/Safari, Foxfire and IE and their various versions

               

              4-      Since you are dead in the water regarding document management with iwp without involving other technologies or FMP licenses

               

              a.       I believe it is time to step back and evaluate the two scenarios separately (non-profit and possible vertical market of solution)

               

              b.      Both will require more than IWP to be successful as doc management solution

               

                                                                             i.      You know the environment that the Non-profit is functioning within

               

                                                                           ii.      In vertical market, You have no idea from customer to customer, what their needs will be.

               

              c.       My gut says if none can or are willing to purchase a server (minimally a Mac Mini Server) FMS and some FMP licenses, they may not be a clients you want.

               

               

               

              I know that doesn’t help you with container fields and IWP but I believe the writing is on the wall at this point.

               

               

               

              Terminal Services and remote desktop might be a possible solution in certain situations

               

               

               

              Bottom line: I believe you have already answered your own questions with the options you described previously.

               

               

               

              Only thing left to do is chose the best fit for your non-profit and then re-evaluate for vertical market .. with flexibility as the key.

               

               

               

              Respectfully

               

              R. Bloomfield