Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  1. Hi all, first I apologise for writing in English. You might think this is rude (and I'm ashamed), but I guarantee that you'd even find it more rude if I tried to write in Dutch. Being the horrible person who dared raising concerns, I'd like to make it very clear that I am all for Open Source. As a matter of fact I run the company where Andries works, which is one of the companies that share the most open source projects on the FileMaker planet. Here are only some of the open source projects/code we shared in the past, some represent hundreds of hours of work, made absolutely free and open for you, despite the fact that we received very few contributions. Each of you can decide if this is selfishness. https://www.1-more-thing.com/filemaker-php-api/ https://www.1-more-thing.com/en/javascript-filemaker-performscript/ https://www.1-more-thing.com/en/filemaker2tableau/ http://fmfunctions.com/functions_search.php?functionsQuery=1&searchTerm=57&memberHandle=Andries%20Heylen http://fmfunctions.com/functions_search.php?functionsQuery=1&searchTerm=37&memberHandle=Fabrice Now this particular javascript project may look new to some of you. It isn't. Andries has developed it and improved it continuously over the years (it was presented originally in public events in 2013!). It is true though that recent FileMaker features have allowed even more improvements, and have brought more attention to FileMaker / javascript integration, which everyone can be only excited about, and that Russell, Peter and Andries have come up with new ideas and code refactoring… and no one is denying this, and I am myself very excited about it. So for the records, I did absolutely not mean to prevent the project to go open source. I just said that : I think it deserves a bit of thinking about what the license terms should be (there are several open source licenses that imply different rules: MIT, BSD…). This is really no big deal. It's the case for every open source project. If your open source project does not deserve the few hours to discuss the right license, it means your project isn't worth developing (I know that from experience ). Also, as Andries wrote, we had some frustrating experiences in the past, and we would like to avoid this kind of situations in the future, and this is not only for us, this concerns all contributors of the project, or even users. I thought it was fair that the repository where the project would be managed would be the one of the company that originated this code, which, sorry but this is a fact, is ours. We are talking about several years of practice with this project, not a few weeks. I have no idea what can seem so crazy in this. This seems like the very basic framework for an open source project. I hope this clarifies™© at least the part of the situation I'm connected to. I'm always open to discussion, but I'm not OK with being called names or accused of things that are the exact opposite of what our records say. So if everyone calms down and can start a gentleman conversation, I'll be glad to participate. Grotjes, Fabrice
  2. Hallo, Sorry for replying in English, but my Dutch is so bad. You only need FileMaker Server to do this. I hope the video explains the principle clearly. What we keep for ourselves as a service (FMSDIFM) is a bunch of web server optimizations, generic FileMaker scripts and custom functions that make the whole thing secure, easier to use and compatible with xml-shaped script parameters. But as far as the initial principle is concerned, you can set it up in a few minutes only.
  3. Peter, just two words : List ( "You" ; "Bastard" ) I'll be following you in the dark streets, haunt your house until... ... FileMaker gives us a dynamic set field script step !
  • Create New...