1. FMS doesn't install it's own web server. It simply appropriates the existing one for it own purposes. When you look in the HTTPServer folder inside FileMaker Server you'll see that the script there is simply a wrapper that provides special FMS configs for /usr/sbin/httpd
2. Whenever the machine is rebooted the FMS version is started
3. I've noticed that the logs are time stamped too, annoying isn't it?
4. Have you found a way to include user directories? Uncommenting the instruction in httpd.conf and restarting didn't seem to be sufficient. I can only get 404 errors.
Malcolm, you are wrong on this.
FMS13 do install it's own Apache server instance on Mac.
That is why you can't use apachectl commands when managing the apache instance, installed by FMS.
The reason is due to technical requirements for WD.
That is why you have to either turn off the built-in apache in Mac os x server or digg down into the configurations to change ports from 80 and 443 as they are taken by the FMS installation.
Actually, FileMaker Server 13 *does* use OS X's built-in Apache build. It just launches its own instance of it, using its own config file and LaunchDaemon.
You need to use FileMaker Server's specific apachectl binary (at /Library/FileMaker Server/HTTPServer/bin/httpdctl) to start/stop FileMaker's Apache instance to properly address that instance of Apache accordingly.
Why FMI didn't just customize the config file of the regular OS X Apache instance like in previous versions is beyond me, though. Hopefully this will be changed in the future.
Great comment, John May! I certainly wish they had not made the change to the way Web Direct interacts with Apache.
/Library/FileMaker Server/HTTPServer/bin/httpdctl is a shell script. You can open it with a text editor to see what is happening.
What I haven't been able to do is to is to configure the httpd.conf that FMS is using to allow web sharing via user directories on Mac OS X.
For my own work I want to have FMSv13 on my development machine and to have access to user sites. In a hosting environment we want to provide user accounts. I know that I can dump everything on my dev machine into the htdocs directory that FMS defines but that doesn't help me with user accounts generally. If anyone finds the key I'd love to know what it is.
I'm not very proficient with Terminal on Mac OS X. In the past I would normally use:
sudo apachetctl restart
to restart Apache. Do you know the correct command to enter in Terminal to do the same thing with the FileMaker Server installed "instance"?
Do you know the correct command to enter in Terminal to do the same thing with the FileMaker Server installed "instance”?
On Mac OS X
sudo /Library/Filemaker\ Server/HTTPServer/httpdctl -graceful
Sorry, you are right. Didn't realize that it is actually an instance of the Apache, instead of a seperate installation.
Thanks for correcting me...
There is a typo in the command you wrote...
..should be: sudo /Library/Filemaker\ Server/HTTPServer/bin/httpdctl -graceful
However, I have not been able to make that command work on two different installations. They exit with error 1
Another way to stop and start is to use these 2 commands;
sudo launchctl stop com.filemaker.fms
sudo launchctl start com.filemaker.fms
(be aware that they can take a couple of minutes, though the terminal seems ready immediately)
FMI is forcing us into a 2-machine deployment...even if we have no desire to use WD. This is a pretty impossible situation for development..
FMI also limiting our dev version connection to 1 means that testing is a nuisance. We can't hop from IOS to WD without closing the connection first...
Sent from my iPad
11th Hour Group Pty Ltd
sorry for the bad information, I was typing from memory. I remember getting an error, perhaps there is no need for the hyphen. If you were in the same directory as the application it would be ./httpdctl graceful.
I did not ever wait for a couple of minutes after supplying commands. If there is such a long lag time it is possible that I need to repeat all my earlier attempts.
It's wild isn't? How many other software companies would think of taking over ports 80 and 443?
I'm still optimistic about finding an appropriate config. I think it is just a matter of asking the right questions.