Cannot get INSERT FROM URL headers to work

Questions
21

Not at all.

My approach avoids proprietary CFs and is a general, generic, workaround. Since a CF is a hack workaround to this product omission, it's better, in my view, to use a workaround that would work from ANY HTTP-enabled application. My approach would also scale automatically for one or for hundreds of Filemaker instances with no per-FMP app config and maintenance. A single point of update.

Thanks Wim.

22

You like to throw these terms around to emphasize your distaste for all things proprietary. The CFs i linked to are not proprietary, they are freely available and fully open.

We've covered this many times before: premature optimization.

And I thought you hated scaffolding; so why would setting up a complete infrastructure outside of FM to support something that for most people would be fully 100% FM functionality be better? That's adding a lot of outside moving parts to cover the potential use from other apps and the potential need for scalability that may never be required.

Premature optimization doesn't make things simpler, it makes things more complex. This whole thread was about simply constructing some cURL options inside FM.

The tools were put at your feet; either you pick them up or you don't. Looking forward to seeing your utility when you are done with it.

2 Likes
23

How do you use a CF outside FileMaker? If not, how then is a CF not proprietary (FMP-only) technology? Maybe we're getting hung up on that word, but to me "proprietary" means locked to a particular company's product or products (that is, "not open").

And, I think you're confusing premature optimization per Donald Knuth with what I'm doing. Your value judgement really depends on system goals.

To wit:

REST Approach:

  • As with all REST stuff, the approach I took has a single point of update for maintenance.
  • Easily scales to hundreds or thousands of clients.
  • A REST approach works with any HTTP-enabled application.
  • REST approach works from FMP 12 or later

REST approach works with FMP 12 or later

As opposed to:

  • A CF needs to be updated in EVERY FMP application that uses it.
  • A CF needs to be copied to every FMP application that needs it.
  • A CF is FileMaker-ONLY.
  • A CF needs to be debugged before production use.

Most times INSERT FROM URL works fine. I think it's really one of FileMaker's best functions or at least one I use most often.

Thanks

24

Proprietary is about ownership. Claris doesn't own the custom functions any more than JavaScript owns the functions you write. C# code is specific to C#. Python is specific to Python.

While the methods are variable, because of the vastly different approaches, a Custom Function is no different than a function call in JavaScript. You have to use JavaScript to make that call to get the result. You can call a custom function from outside of FileMaker. You just have to use the supported path to get there. The Data API, CWP, OData, all allow you a way to ask FileMaker for the result of a function. FileMaker can be a micro-service.

3 Likes
25

Good points.

I'll use a clearer word than proprietary from now on. It's clear from context I meant it as something else ("FMP only", as with CFs).

In theory, yes, a CF call is like a JS call, But in practice, JavaScript does not require FileMaker, but a CF does. JavaScript is ubiquitous. I'm not saying that difference is good or bad (yes, I have my preferences, but that does not imply good or bad). Just different.

26

I agree JavaScript is everywhere. To use it like you say though, you have to build something that is specific to your use-case. That is no different than FileMaker. I could set up a url call from JavaScript to get the result of a FileMaker Custom Function without needing you to involve FIleMaker. It's the same process, the same flow for the end user and developer using it.

I'm sorry, your statement that you aren't saying the "difference is good or bad" isn't accurate. I'm perfectly fine with you having the opinion do. I really don't care, but lets be honest about what you actually said.

27

I believe that a few solutions to the initial question were provided.

The semantics conversation is interesting and could be continued in the loungeā€”or not.

4 Likes
28

Back to proprietary....what I actually meant was that "CF Technology" is proprietary (owned by) FMI.

29

LOL...good point! :slight_smile:

(especially the "or not"...)

And, you're right, @WimDecorte gave the CURL solution that worked perfectly and I thanked him for it.

1 Like
30

I can't believe I'm saying this, but are you really asking how you would use a CF designed to format cURL options for use in a FileMaker HTTP call outside of FileMaker?? dude..

31

No, that wasnā€™t what I was asking. :scream:

The bottom line, the important thing, is that @WimDecorte gave me excellent help and got the CURL Options working and I'm very grateful to him for his excellent help.