7 Replies Latest reply on Dec 6, 2012 11:37 AM by Stephen Huston



      What are the upgrade plans for the Runtime module?

        • 1. Re: RUNTIME

          + 1


          Runtime solutions .... Java security ..... OS going to iOS/Win 8 ..... what to do and when?

          • 2. Re: RUNTIME
            Stephen Huston

            It's not clear what you are asking about regarding updating runtimes.


            Runtimes generated with an updated version of FMP Adv will reflect the update in the new Runtime Engine file. If you have a earlier runtime, you will need to rebind with the same exact settings as previously used to create it, and the resulting new Runtime engine file (app) will need to be substituted for the older engine file in the solution package.


            Support for Runtimes is  the developer's responsibility according to FMI.

            • 3. Re: RUNTIME

              I guess my question(s) was a bit bigger. Do people feel that Runtimes are going to exist in 1/2/5 years? Mobile FM is a different animal and runtimes are not really runtimes in the mobile world.... With FileMaker Go being free/near free, do runtimes make sense?


              In light of which OS's are going..... Mt. Lion and Windows 8 and Android/etc. Does a unsecure app like a self built FM app have too much freedom for the OS manufacturers to allow the Runtime to even exist.... In the case of Apple, these are in the realm of "Unsigned Apps" that will give security warnings up to and including denial of ability to start up the app.... now or in the very near future....


              FM Server - the JAVA based app..... is security going to make it a impossible target as a platform....


              I'm trying to give customers a perspective on Security, Runtimes, and OS evolution but I too am wondering .... and in particular I wonder about the supportability of FileMaker Runtimes as a platforms... I have built a few..... but can't say I find them to be better than sliced bread as of 2012.


              Does that help get to my question?


              A little more.... I do not see a lot of either positive or negative talk on runtimes anymore on the forums..... it has either gotten perfect and trouble free or perhaps runtimes are not used that much anymore..... Anybody know the numbers and care to share some?

              • 4. Re: RUNTIME



                In the case of Apple OS X, runtimes can be signed.  In iOS, runtimes are treated as any .fmp12 solution file for FM Go.  The only "unsigned" elements are the optional profiles (custom icons) in iOS.

                • 5. Re: RUNTIME

                  There are at least a couple variations and perhaps a re-defined runtime here....


                  Perhaps in the case of Apple OS X - Mt. Lion and higher - a runtime is "packaged" as a Mac OS X .app. Is that what you mean?


                  And then on to iOS - in this case one doesn't use a runtime at all, one extracts the base FileMaker file(s) from the true runtime and then puts them in the FM GO iOS "runtime" environment. I think we are redefining runtime to be completely different than the historical creating a FileMaker "Runtime" solution which has been a way to create a stand alone application with limitations ( some imposed by FileMaker, Inc. license agreement and some by technical capabilities - i.e. networking technical limitation.) I don't think of FM Go "hosting" of a FileMaker file to be a genuine personal, professionally branded "runtime" in the traditional sense.


                  We are indeed in transition. My question is about the bigger picture or security and what is a trusted app and.or app developer.


                  Please feel free to help me understand what the current experience of Runtime developers is giving us today <and> also what the community is thinking ... is there a transitioning completely away from the traditional Runtime applications?


                  I am interested in getting a sense of the medium term - 2-3 years viability of building standalone FileMaker Runtimes. I am particular interested in the boundary where, as was pointed out by "JML" one an "package" the runtime to get a "signed" app. Does this actually allow it to be "installed" and "run" in, for example, Mac OS X - Mt. Lion - without changing security settings for apps......i.e. System Preferences> Security & Privacy > General> Allow applications download from: Mac App Store OR Mac App Store and identified developers OR Anywhere.  Personal, I have already had to "downgrade" my computer's security setting ( opinion ) by changing this setting to "Anywhere" to use an app for even what I consider to be a "responsible" and personally trusted developer because Apple has not "identified" the developer as in the class of "identified developers". I assume there are a number of unidentified developers who are perhaps FileMaker runtime developers - true? anyone?

                  • 6. Re: RUNTIME

                    tjsoftworks wrote:


                    Does this actually allow it to be "installed" and "run" in, for example, Mac OS X - Mt. Lion - without changing security settings for apps......i.e. System Preferences> Security & Privacy > General> Allow applications download from: Mac App Store OR Mac App Store and identified developers⁄



                    Yes, as an identified developer.


                    You can also install unsigned applications from "responsible" and personally trusted develpers by holding the control key when installing without "downgrading" your computer's security setting.

                    • 7. Re: RUNTIME
                      Stephen Huston

                      A few comments from my own experience, having had vertical runtime solutions in public distribution for over a dozen years:

                      1. Most of the runtime users I had 6–12 years ago now tell me they have moved the FM data files to their iOS devices and no longer use the runtime engine at all.
                      2. Some solutions still almost demand a desktop environment, and I am working hard to move those customers to full FMP installations rather than using runtime-engine systems. The runtime package just has too many limitations, including networking restraints. (A few small non-profits still rely on Runtimes I made for their single-user systems in past years.)
                      3. My next vertical market release is being planned to go first to iOS (without a runtime package) for FMGo 12, and I will then see if there is any demand for the Runtime engine from desktop users. No point in creating  X-plat runtime structures for different system downloads if it's not going to get used.
                      4. Most of my users don't want the ability to mess with file structures -- they just want to run them to do their work.
                      • I think FMI should work on the much-discussed thin-client FM for desktop, with FMGo capability as a universal runtime for FMP12 files on Mac and Windows. They can charge for it, but it should be far less than for Pro or Advanced. It might even expand FM's market base by making larger installations more cost-effective.