Filemaker的优缺点是什么?

A potential customer has asked me to look at some promotional flyers for a couple of apps which fall into the contact management / scheduler category. Both use Filemaker as their backend. It looks like these two apps are sold as web apps. At any rate I had not heard of Filemaker in about ten years, so it was surprising to see it pop up twice in the same sitting. I think it started out as a Mac platform db system.

一位潜在的客户让我看一些促销传单，介绍一些属于联系人管理/调度器的应用。两者都使用Filemaker作为后端。看起来这两个应用程序是作为web应用程序出售的。不管怎么说，我已经有十年没听说过Filemaker了，所以看到它同时出现两次，我感到很惊讶。我认为它最初是一个Mac平台的db系统。

I am more partial to SQL Server, MY SQL, etc, but before make any comments on Filemaker, I'd like to know some of the pros and cons of the system. It must be more than Access for Mac's, but I have never run across it as a player in the client / server or web app arena.

我更喜欢SQL Server，我的SQL等等，但是在评论Filemaker之前，我想了解一下这个系统的优缺点。它肯定不只是Mac的访问权限，但我从来没有在客户端/服务器或web应用程序领域中遇到过它。

Many thanks Mike Thomas

非常感谢迈克•托马斯

16 个解决方案

#1

Calling Filemaker Pro, Access for the Mac is kind of like saying, Mac OS X is Windows for the Mac. They're both in the same category of software, they're integrated programming environments. It's like you have MySQL, PHP, HTML and your editor put together in a GUI. Comparing the two, they both have pros an cons. Here are the pros and cons of using Filemaker Pro vs PHP/MySQL/HTML in my experience.

称Filemaker Pro为Mac的Access就像是说，Mac OS X是Mac的Windows，它们都属于同一类软件，都是集成的编程环境。就像你有MySQL、PHP、HTML和你的编辑器放在一个GUI中一样。对比两者，两者都有优缺点。以下是我在使用Filemaker Pro与PHP/MySQL/HTML时的优缺点。

Pros:

优点:

• Easy to get started
• 很容易开始
• Easy to deploy locally, turn on sharing and connect from another client
• 易于在本地部署，打开共享并从另一个客户端连接
• Cross-platform (Mac OS X, Windows, iOS)
• 跨平台(Mac OS X, Windows, iOS)
• There are many plugins available to extend functionality
• 有许多插件可以扩展功能。
• Includes starter solutions
• 包括起动器解决方案
• Anyone with access can edit the program
• 任何有权限的人都可以编辑程序
• For the most part, drag and drop programming
• 在大多数情况下，拖放编程
• Changing field/database/script names after the fact is free
• 在事实之后更改字段/数据库/脚本名称是免费的
• Has some neat built in tricks like built in graphs, tab controls, web viewers
• 有一些像图、标签控件、网络查看器这样的小技巧吗?
• Built in support for importing exporting excel, cvs, tab-formatted
• 内置支持导入导出excel, cvs，表格格式。

Cons:

缺点:

• Inflexible: it does what it does well, but if you need more your out of luck for the most part
• 不灵活:它做的很好，但如果你需要更多你的运气在大部分
• Expensive compared to the free alternative: It costs about $100 per year for a local user, $150 per developer, if you are using it as a website you need specialized hosting, which tends to cost more. In addition the server part of the software is about $300-$800 a year
• 与免费的替代方案相比，价格昂贵:本地用户每年大约花费100美元，开发人员每年花费150美元。此外，该软件的服务器部分每年大约为300- 800美元
• The plugins required to extend functionality can be expensive as well
• 扩展功能所需的插件也很昂贵
• Pretty much only drag and drop programming, you can only use predefined script steps, relationships are made by making a graph
• 几乎只有拖放编程，您只能使用预定义的脚本步骤，关系是通过绘制图表来实现的
• Source control is problem
• 源控制问题
• Lack of scalability
• 缺乏可伸缩性
• Unable to copy and paste/import or export some items from solutions
• 无法从解决方案中复制、粘贴/导入或导出某些项
• Requires the mouse to access functionality
• 要求鼠标访问功能
• Layout design is fairly static and dated (this is improving with the Filemaker 12 and above)
• 布局设计是相当静态和过时的(这是由Filemaker 12和以上改进的)

In general I would say that if you're developing exclusively for the web or a large organization Filemaker Pro probably isn't the best fit. It's difficult to have multiple people developing on the same solution. On the other hand, for a smaller organization in need of a customizable in-house database it could be a great boon. You can build rather complicated applications very quickly with it if your willing to deal with it's deficiencies.

一般来说，我想说的是，如果你是专门为web开发的，或者大型组织Filemaker Pro可能不是最好的选择。很难让多人在同一解决方案上开发。另一方面，对于需要可定制的内部数据库的小型组织来说，这可能是一个巨大的福音。如果您愿意处理它的不足之处，您可以使用它快速构建相当复杂的应用程序。

#2

Pros:

优点:

• It's cheap
• 它很便宜

Cons:

缺点:

• It's cheap(ly made)
• 它很便宜(ly)
• It's non-standard (easy to find MySQL/Oracle/MSSQL/Access experts but nobody knows Filemaker)
• 它是非标准的(很容易找到MySQL/Oracle/MSSQL/Access专家，但是没有人知道Filemaker)

Using subpar and/or nonstandard technologies only creates technology debt. I've never found a respectable dev that actually enjoyed (or wanted to) using this niche product.

使用低于标准和/或非标准的技术只会产生技术债务。我从来没有发现过真正喜欢(或想要)使用这个利基产品的值得尊敬的开发人员。

In my opinion this product exists because it is Access for Macs, and it gained enough of a userbase and existing applications that enough people bought each upgrade to keep it in business. There are many products on the market that still exist because it's users are locked in, not because it's a good choice.

在我看来，这个产品之所以存在，是因为它可以访问mac电脑，而且它获得了足够的用户群和现有的应用程序，以至于有足够多的人购买了每一次升级，以保证它的正常运行。市场上还有许多产品仍然存在，因为它的用户被锁定，而不是因为它是一个好的选择。

#3

I'll admit to bias on this subject -- I work with one of the larger FileMaker development shops out there, and have written the odd book on the subject. We actually employ many respectable developers who love using FMP. I'll try to keep it brief. :-)

我承认我在这个问题上有偏见——我和一个更大的FileMaker开发公司合作过，写过关于这个问题的奇怪的书。我们实际上雇佣了许多值得尊敬的开发人员，他们喜欢使用FMP。我尽量简短些。:-)

FileMaker Pro is a rapid app development tool. It's primarily client-server, though it has some very respectable web publishing capabilities which work well for many applications. It is not SQL-based, but does have ODBC and JDBC interfaces, as well as an XML/HTTP interface.

FileMaker Pro是一个快速的应用开发工具。它主要是客户端-服务器，尽管它有一些非常受人尊敬的web发布功能，对于许多应用程序来说都很好用。它不是基于sql的，但是有ODBC和JDBC接口，以及XML/HTTP接口。

As far as lock-in, FileMaker Inc has grown sales steadily, with very significant growth in new users who are attracted to the platform's solidity and ease of use.

在锁定方面，FileMaker Inc的销量稳步增长，新用户的增长非常显著，他们被该平台的坚固性和易用性所吸引。

I think Matt Haughton nailed it -- for the right applications, FMP is simply the best choice going. That said, your customer is looking at apps written in FMP Pro, and you need to evaluate those apps on their own merit. They may be good instances of FMP development, or they may not.

我认为马特·霍顿(Matt ghhauton)说得对——对于合适的应用程序来说，FMP就是最好的选择。也就是说，你的客户正在查看用FMP Pro编写的应用程序，你需要根据自己的优点来评估这些应用程序。它们可能是FMP开发的好例子，也可能不是。

To know more about FMP's fitness for the task, we'd need to hear more about the proposed application and user base. Are these indeed web apps, or client-server? How many users will be using it? Do they work at one or two site, or are they spread across the Internet?

要了解FMP对任务的适应性，我们需要更多地了解所提议的应用程序和用户基础。这些是web应用程序，还是客户机-服务器?有多少用户会使用它?他们是在一个或两个网站上工作，还是在互联网上传播?

Happy to elaborate further if there's more interest.

如果有更多的兴趣，很乐意进一步阐述。

#4

FileMaker is designed to integrate very simply with other databases and client applications. If you are looking at building a complicated distributed system, look elsewhere.

FileMaker的设计目的是非常简单地与其他数据库和客户端应用程序集成。如果您正在构建一个复杂的分布式系统，请查看其他地方。

FileMaker is NOT good to use as a front-end to another datasource due to the design goals of the External SQL Data Sources (ESS) feature set, and it is NOT good to use as a back-end to anything other that the FM client due to slow and buggy ODBC drivers. The nature of FileMaker's architecture means it doesn't scale very well with complicated solutions regardless of how well it can integrate with other systems.

由于外部SQL数据源(ESS)特性集的设计目标，FileMaker不适合作为另一个数据源的前端使用，而且由于速度缓慢和错误的ODBC驱动程序，它也不适合作为FM客户机的后端使用。FileMaker体系结构的性质意味着，无论它与其他系统集成得多好，它都不能很好地与复杂的解决方案进行伸缩。

Here's a developer's perspective on some limitations I've found when teaming FileMaker with other back-ends and ODBC clients:

下面是一个开发人员对我在与其他后端和ODBC客户端联合FileMaker时发现的一些限制的看法:

• The ODBC driver is limited, slow, and leaks memory on the client-side. The xdbc_listender.exe has similar memory leaking issues on the server side and will eventually crash when it uses a certain amount of RAM. We have a scheduled script to restart it each night.
• ODBC驱动程序是有限的、缓慢的，并且在客户端上泄漏内存。xdbc_listender。exe在服务器端有类似的内存泄漏问题，在使用一定数量的RAM时最终会崩溃。我们有一个预定的脚本，每天晚上重新启动它。
• FileMaker needs to load all related databases into memory before it can connect to a database. If its a complicated database, opening and closing a connection can be quite slow (1-2 seconds) depending on how it is structured, and more so if the database references tables in other FM databases because they need to be loaded as well. I get around this by creating persistent connections that stay open for the lifetime of the application. Although we try to minimize the number of open connections, we have yet to see a performance hit on the server.
• FileMaker需要将所有相关数据库加载到内存中，然后才能连接到数据库。如果它是一个复杂的数据库，那么打开和关闭一个连接会非常慢(1-2秒)，这取决于它的结构，如果数据库引用其他FM数据库中的表，则会更慢(因为它们也需要加载)。我通过创建在应用程序的生命周期中保持开放的持久连接来解决这个问题。虽然我们试图最小化打开连接的数量，但是我们还没有看到服务器上的性能受到影响。
• The ODBC driver interprets queries in strange ways. For example I ran a query on 76k rows to UPDATE table_1 SET field_1 = 1 and it took 5 mins to perform the query because I think it split the one query into 46k update queries, one for each row. I know this because I watched it update the rows one-by-one in the FM client. So I don't trust the ODBC driver at all.
• ODBC驱动程序以奇怪的方式解释查询。例如，我在76k行上运行查询来更新table_1集field_1 = 1，执行查询需要5分钟，因为我认为它将一个查询分割为46k更新查询，每一行一个。我知道这一点，因为我看到它在FM客户机中逐个更新行。所以我一点也不相信ODBC驱动程序。

Here's another example of 3 different queries and how long they took searching on two date fields:

下面是另外一个关于三个不同查询的例子，以及他们在两个日期字段上搜索的时间:

SELECT id FROM table
WHERE datefield1 = {d '2014-03-26'}

.5 seconds

5秒

SELECT id FROM table
WHERE datefield2 = {d '2014-03-26'} 

.5 seconds

5秒

SELECT id FROM table
WHERE datefield1 = {d '2014-03-26'} OR datefield2 = {d '2014-03-26'}

1 minute 13 seconds!

1分钟13秒!

• We had problems with how FileMaker cached data from an SQL Express database. We tried to run the command to clear the cache, but it didn't always work (spent a lot of time investigating this).
• 我们遇到了FileMaker如何从SQL Express数据库缓存数据的问题。我们试图运行命令来清除缓存，但它并不总是有效(花了很多时间研究这个)。
• FileMaker uses pessimistic locking of records; before editing (from the client or as part of an odbc transaction) FileMaker attempts to lock the row first.
• FileMaker使用对记录的悲观锁定;在编辑(来自客户端或作为odbc事务的一部分)之前，FileMaker尝试先锁定行。
• The FileMaker Server service "prefers" being stopped using the Admin Console (though the Admin Console may sometimes be unable to stop it either). If the FileMaker Server service stops any other way (including power loss, via the management console, or even a normal system shutdown) then some of your databases may become corrupt. Same if a client crashes during an operation, or if the network connection is lost suddenly. The solution for a power loss is to write a batch script to try and automate the shutdown, and then buy a UPS and program it to execute your script before the juice runs out. And hope it works. Otherwise backup hourly using the built-in scheduler. Aside: SQL server doesn't have this problem because it can roll back uncommitted transactions.
• FileMaker服务器服务“更喜欢”使用管理控制台停止(尽管管理控制台有时也无法停止)。如果FileMaker服务器服务以任何其他方式停止(包括通过管理控制台断电，甚至是正常的系统关闭)，那么您的一些数据库可能会损坏。同样，如果客户端在操作期间崩溃，或者网络连接突然丢失。解决电源损耗的方法是编写一个批处理脚本来尝试和自动化关闭，然后购买一个UPS并对其进行编程，以便在程序耗尽之前执行脚本。并希望它的工作原理。否则，使用内置调度器每小时进行备份。旁白:SQL server没有这个问题，因为它可以回滚未提交的事务。
• Performing backups with the built-in scheduler actually suspends operations to the database during backup process. ie, if its a large database, then it might take a minute to backup and users will notice the pause because they wont be able to edit/insert, etc.
• 使用内置调度器执行备份实际上会在备份过程中挂起对数据库的操作。例如，如果它是一个大的数据库，那么它可能需要一分钟的备份和用户会注意到暂停，因为他们不能编辑/插入，等等。
• If you're using the FileMaker PHP API, take note that you can't use AND and OR together in the same request.
• 如果您正在使用FileMaker PHP API，请注意您不能在同一个请求中使用和或一起使用。
• Running an intensive query using the ODBC driver might be fast on its own, but run the same query simultaneously (as in a multi-user environment) and it will slow down by about 300% exponentially. You will run into speed issues if you’re expecting a large volume of intensive queries to hit the database at the same time.
• 使用ODBC驱动程序运行密集查询本身可能很快，但同时运行相同的查询(与多用户环境中一样)，并且速度将以大约300%的指数级下降。如果您希望同时处理大量密集查询，则会遇到速度问题。
• We have found that when the FileMaker ODBC driver says it has finished an update/insert operation, it still does not guarantee the transaction is committed; it appears that FileMaker will continue to hold the changes in the server cache until the auto-enter calculated fields are evaluated/indexed and then it saves to disc, meaning there may be more of a delay until the record is actually committed. So really the ODBC write operations are not always immediate writes, but rather eventual writes. This delay will be especially evident in complicated tables with many calculated fields and triggers.
• 我们发现，当FileMaker ODBC驱动程序表示已完成更新/插入操作时，仍然不能保证事务已提交;似乎FileMaker将继续保存服务器缓存中的更改，直到自动输入计算字段被计算/索引，然后保存到磁盘，这意味着在实际提交记录之前可能会有更多的延迟。因此，真正的ODBC写操作并不总是即时写入，而是最终写入。这种延迟在复杂的表中尤其明显，有许多计算字段和触发器。
• Calculated fields may slow down execution and reading via the ODBC driver, depending on what is being evaluated. Try to read stored values whenever possible.
• 计算的字段可能会减慢执行和通过ODBC驱动程序读取的速度，这取决于正在计算的内容。尽可能尝试读取存储的值。
• Using BLOB containers: Not Recommended. Storing documents such as PDFs in a container field will inflate your database file size, take longer to backup and complicate the retrieval and editing of those files via ODBC. It’s much easier to store files on a network share and write to the file on disk.
• 使用BLOB容器:不推荐。在容器字段中存储诸如PDFs之类的文档将扩大数据库文件的大小，需要更长的时间进行备份，并使通过ODBC检索和编辑这些文件变得更加复杂。在网络共享上存储文件并将其写入磁盘上的文件要容易得多。

If you must use FM as a front-end solution to another database, make sure to carefully read FileMaker's Introduction to External SQL Sources.

如果必须使用FM作为另一个数据库的前端解决方案，请务必仔细阅读FileMaker对外部SQL源的介绍。

Also refer to the the appropriate version FileMaker ODBC Guide found on their website.

还可以参考在其网站上找到的适当版本FileMaker ODBC指南。

#5

Just a few comments on the subject

就这个问题说几句话

FileMaker is certainly cheaper than some enterprise solutions in licensing costs. However, the real cost benefit is in development time. The development life-cycle is typically orders of magnitude lower than other enterprise platforms (whatever the licensing costs of those platforms). By this I mean days instead of weeks, or weeks rather than months to develop some feature.

在许可成本方面，FileMaker当然比某些企业解决方案要便宜。然而，真正的成本效益是在开发阶段。开发生命周期通常比其他企业平台低几个数量级(无论这些平台的许可成本如何)。我指的是开发某些特性的天数而不是星期，或者是星期而不是月份。

There is a strong argument that FileMaker is Access for the Mac. While this was a valid argument a few years ago, FileMaker has come into its own in recent years. It's worth noting that FileMaker is cross platform and used extensively on Windows as well as Mac. That being said there are still huge similarities and differences between FileMaker and Access, the truth is none of them have any bearing on your situation.

有一种强烈的观点认为FileMaker是Mac的访问权限。虽然这在几年前是一个有效的论点，但FileMaker近年来已经有了自己的发展。值得一提的是FileMaker是跨平台的，在Windows和Mac上都有广泛的应用。如果说FileMaker和Access之间还有很大的相似和不同之处，但事实上它们都与你的情况毫无关系。

While FileMaker is non-standard it does support live connection to MySQL, MS SQL Server and Oracle.

虽然FileMaker不是标准的，但它支持到MySQL、MS SQL Server和Oracle的实时连接。

Also, there are numerous FileMaker developers not as much as more standard platforms, but they are definitely about, if you let me know where you are I can put you in touch with a selection of developers in your area.

此外，还有很多FileMaker的开发人员，他们没有标准平台那么多，但他们肯定是，如果你让我知道你在哪里，我可以让你联系你所在领域的一些开发人员。

The important point I want to make is that in the correct context FileMaker is the best thing in the world at what it does - if you try to do something that it's not meant to do, you'll get stuck. However, it could support offices in 4 locations, it can and is being done.

我想指出的重要一点是，在正确的上下文中，FileMaker是世界上最适合它所做的事情——如果你试图做一些它不应该做的事情，你会被卡住。然而，它可以在4个地点设立办事处，可以而且正在进行。

Before you go and rewrite your system in some other platform you should get in touch with a FileMaker expert and see what they have to say about what you've currently got, writing more details on this site and having non-experts answer positively or negatively won't help you. In the end it has to be a business choice of costs vs. benefits.

在你在其他平台上重写你的系统之前，你应该和FileMaker专家取得联系，看看他们对你目前所拥有的内容有什么看法，在这个网站上写下更多的细节，让非专家给出肯定或否定的答案对你没有帮助。最后，它必须是成本与收益的商业选择。

#6

No need to list anymore "Cons" - but here is a significant "Pro" - Filemaker Go. Once you have your database setup, download a ipad/iphone app (free for FM12) and run it from a mobile device. The database can be stored locally on the ipad/iphone or synced back to a host PC.

不再需要列出更多的“缺点”——但这里有一个重要的“优点”——Filemaker Go。设置好数据库后，下载ipad/iphone应用程序(免费使用FM12)，并从移动设备上运行它。数据库可以存储在本地的ipad/iphone上，也可以同步到主机上。

I'm sure this mobile solution is possible elsewhere - but the fundamental point is that an entry-level user (and I mean NO previous database experience) can create an impressive solution within a few weeks.

我确信这种移动解决方案在其他地方是可行的——但最基本的一点是，入门用户(我的意思是没有以前的数据库经验)可以在几周内创建一个令人印象深刻的解决方案。

Personal experience: main database running FM 11 hosted on PC under my desk - 4 researchers scattered across the city collecting data on ipads - all syncing back to my PC. Previous solution was using paper and entering in data by hand.

个人经验:主要数据库运行FM 11托管在我的桌子下面- 4个研究员分散在城市收集ipad数据-所有同步回到我的电脑。以前的解决方案是用纸，手工输入数据。

#7

FileMaker is an interesting app :) It started as an end-user tool and it still is one of very few database apps that a non-programmer can actually use. But somehow FileMaker developers managed to make it very scalable. There's no other platform where one can start with a useful tool and end up with a client-server app that for the whole company. In old days they used to have a splash screen that captured this very idea (I only found an imperfect version):

FileMaker是一个有趣的应用程序:)它最初是一个终端用户工具，但它仍然是少数几个非程序员可以真正使用的数据库应用程序之一。但不知何故，FileMaker开发人员设法使它变得非常可伸缩。没有其他平台可以让你从一个有用的工具开始，然后最终为整个公司开发一个客户端-服务器应用。在过去，他们有一个醒目的屏幕来捕捉这个想法(我只发现了一个不完美的版本):

I.e. something as simple as a file cabinet that can grow quite big.

也就是说，像文件柜这样简单的东西可以长得很大。

All FileMaker pros and cons come from its origin. As an end-user tool it's very much unlike other DBMS apps. No SQL. No real programming: scripts are basically macros that repeat user actions in a slightly more general way with variables and some logic. Lots of limitations; e.g. a list view cannot have a sidebar; a dynamic value list is always sorted alphabetically; to open a Save As dialog and read back the file name you'll need a plug-in; and so on. For a programmer this can be very frustrating, because most his assumptions will be wrong. And existing apps written by non-programmers are not exactly paragons of clarity and solid design.

所有的FileMaker正反都源于它的起源。作为终端用户工具，它与其他DBMS应用程序非常不同。没有SQL。没有真正的编程:脚本基本上是用变量和一些逻辑以更一般的方式重复用户操作的宏。大量的限制;例如，列表视图不能有侧边栏;动态值列表总是按字母顺序排序;要打开一个Save As对话框并回读文件名，您需要一个插件;等等。对于一个程序员来说，这是非常令人沮丧的，因为他的大多数假设都是错误的。而非程序员编写的现有应用程序并不是清晰可靠的典范。

But if you manage to overcome the obstacles you'll find a rather good RAD for client-server, single-user, web, and mobile apps, that stays rather usable over WAN, with such niceties as runtime and kiosk mode.

但是如果你克服了这些障碍，你会发现一个相当不错的客户端-服务器、单用户、网络和移动应用程序，它们在WAN上是相当有用的，有运行时和kiosk模式这样的细节。

Having said that, I'm not quite sure about generic contact management and scheduling apps in FileMaker. If this is what they are, then they should be unlocked, so the customer can make changes; or they have to be niche apps that do for the customer what nothing else does.

话虽如此，我对FileMaker中的通用联系人管理和调度应用并不十分确定。如果这就是它们，那么它们应该被解锁，以便客户可以进行更改;或者它们必须是小众的应用程序，为客户做其他事情。

#8

Filemaker is enormously powerful and versatile. Excellent multi-user support. You can create wonderful solutions in Filemaker with document management, web interface, iphone interface, automated publishing support, scheduled scripts, PDF/Excel/HTML reports, XML support, caller ID record lookup, integration of web data (UPS & Fedex linked to order record for example). Extensible with plugins. It's like being in the Home Depot of data. Don't try to build Amazon; other than that what can't you build with it, and faster app dev than most anywhere else?

Filemaker功能强大，用途广泛。优秀的多用户支持。您可以在Filemaker中创建出色的解决方案，包括文档管理、web界面、iphone界面、自动发布支持、计划脚本、PDF/Excel/HTML报告、XML支持、调用者ID记录查找、web数据集成(例如UPS & Fedex链接到订单记录)。可扩展的插件。这就像在家得宝的数据里。不要试图建立亚马逊;除此之外，还有什么是你不能用它来构建的呢?

#9

It has been more than a year now since I run through FM and use it in developing solutions for various clients. The following are my FM experience:

从我运行FM到为各种客户开发解决方案到现在已经有一年多的时间了。以下是我的FM体验:

1. learning curve is much less than using the hard coded industry standard technology;
2. 学习曲线比硬编码行业标准技术要少得多;
3. it can fit well as to industry standards platforms because of it's ODBC and JDBC connectivity. Your data is not locked in FM and other data format can get in FM;
4. 由于它的ODBC和JDBC连接性，它可以很好地适应行业标准平台。您的数据未锁定在FM中，其他数据格式可以进入FM;
5. it fits well as front end and back end solutions.
6. 它适用于前端和后端解决方案。
7. FM can match enterprise platform having a right database design and deployment i.e. workgroup or department oriented solutions. This is data to it's workgroup owner and make it available for other workgroups or departments;
8. FM可以匹配具有正确数据库设计和部署的企业平台，例如面向工作组或面向部门的解决方案。这是它的工作组所有者的数据，并使它对其他工作组或部门可用;
9. FM is fits well for rapid application development that employs prototyping;
10. FM很适合使用原型的快速应用开发;
11. FM has many more capabilities you therein...
12. FM有更多的能力你在其中…

I suggest you try it yourself and I'm sure you'll love the stuff FM can offer!

我建议你自己试试，我相信你会喜欢FM提供的东西!

Happy computing...

快乐的计算……

#10

A little research has made me think that FileMaker is indeed Access for Mac, but perhaps a little more robust. I worked with Access for years, never really liked it, and am glad to be away from it (I always held a grudge for MSFT killing FoxPro, which I did like).

一些研究让我认为FileMaker确实可以访问Mac，但可能会更健壮一些。我在Access工作了很多年，从来没有真正喜欢过它，我很高兴远离它(我一直对MSFT杀死FoxPro心怀怨恨，我确实喜欢它)。

It is hard for me to imagine it as a good solution for a web based app used by offices in four locations around the country, plus many others logging on from home, etc.

对我来说，很难想象这是一个很好的解决方案，一个基于web的应用程序在全国的四个地方被办公室使用，另外还有很多人从家里登录，等等。

Using it does not make much sense when MySQL, SQL Server, etc are available for the data storage and ASP.NET, PHP, Ruby etc are there for the programming.

当MySQL、SQL Server等用于数据存储和ASP时，使用它并没有多大意义。NET、PHP、Ruby等都是用于编程的。

Mike Thomas

迈克·托马斯。

#11

While the comparisons to "Access for Mac" is inevitable, there are some important distinctions that have to be made.

尽管与“Mac的接入”进行比较是不可避免的，但仍有一些重要的区别需要区分。

FileMaker databases can be shared out to more than one person provided 1 of 2 things happen. One, a person on your network opens the DB and shares it from their computer, acting as the host. Two, you buy and install FileMaker server which hosts the DBs.

如果发生两件事中的一件发生，FileMaker数据库可以被共享给多个人。首先，网络上的一个人打开DB并从他们的计算机上共享它，作为主机。第二，您购买并安装服务器，它托管DBs。

Also it's been my experience that while FileMaker developers LOVE FM, they're having to learn other technologies because more and more government agencies (my primary employer the past 10 years) are moving off of FM and into SQL Server, Oracle and to some extent Access and open source. FileMaker skills are becoming less and less in demand in the public sector, so getting support for these applications is harder and consequently, more expensive.

此外，我的经验是，虽然FileMaker开发人员喜欢FM，但他们必须学习其他技术，因为越来越多的*机构(我过去10年的主要雇主)正在从FM转移到SQL Server、Oracle以及某种程度上的Access和开源。FileMaker技能在公共部门的需求越来越少，因此获得对这些应用程序的支持更加困难，因此也更加昂贵。

That being said, we have a FM server and FM 5.5 clients running an application that has been rock solid for the past 5 years.

也就是说，我们有一个FM服务器和FM 5.5客户端，运行一个应用程序，这个应用程序在过去5年里一直非常稳定。

#12

Lots of comments about FileMaker being non-standard. But what is "standard"? By "standard", many people mean that a database supports Structured Query Language (SQL) (ISO Standard 9075) and FileMaker has and continues to support SQL. How every database engine supports SQL is proprietary to every database. Now it might be open source such as MySQL, but SQL is a standard to support, not the underlying language of how it is accomplished.

关于FileMaker不规范的评论很多。但“标准”是什么?许多人所说的“标准”，是指数据库支持结构化查询语言(SQL) (ISO标准9075)，而FileMaker已经并将继续支持SQL。每个数据库引擎如何支持SQL是每个数据库专有的。现在它可能是开源的，比如MySQL，但是SQL是一个可以支持的标准，而不是实现它的底层语言。

When most people talk about databases, they are only talking about the backend tables and schema. The front end user interface is frequently something else. And most of them now render those results as html pages via open standards like PHP. Again, FileMaker fully supports PHP calls and Apache or IIS (depending on which OS platform you are on).

当大多数人讨论数据库时，他们只讨论后端表和模式。前端用户界面通常是其他东西。现在，他们中的大多数通过像PHP这样的开放标准将这些结果呈现为html页面。同样，FileMaker完全支持PHP调用和Apache或IIS(取决于您使用的是哪个OS平台)。

So I would disagree with people saying FileMaker is non-standard.

所以我不同意人们说FileMaker是不标准的。

What is unique about FileMaker is its tight integration between the schema and the User Interface. This is similar to Apple's tight integration between hardware and the Operating system, which has some nice benefits. Interestingly, FileMaker is owned by Apple, but I guess that is another topic.

FileMaker的独特之处在于它在模式和用户界面之间的紧密集成。这类似于苹果在硬件和操作系统之间的紧密集成，这有一些好处。有趣的是，FileMaker归苹果所有，但我猜这是另一个话题。

Generally, FileMaker's User Interface is considerably easier to use than most open standards and most people stick to FileMaker's client User Interface instead of web interfaces. There are still a number of things supported only in FileMaker User Interface that can't be duplicated in a web browser.

通常，FileMaker的用户界面比大多数开放标准要容易得多，大多数人坚持使用FileMaker的客户端用户界面，而不是web界面。仍然有许多东西只支持FileMaker用户界面，不能在web浏览器中复制。

FileMaker really makes rapid application development much easier with its close integration of schema and user interface. This makes development cost a whole lot less in most cases.

通过模式和用户界面的紧密集成，FileMaker确实使快速应用程序开发变得更加容易。在大多数情况下，这使得开发成本大大降低。

FileMaker's database services can be spread among up to 3 machines giving it primitive load balancing abilities with web services. While FileMaker easily supports hundreds of users, if you go into thousands of simultaneous users, many SQL only databases (eg Oracle, MS SQL Server, MySQL, Postgres) are designed to better spread out the load across more machines. Basically, if you have high simultaneous transactions, FileMaker is not your solution. For example, a company with many point of sale terminals from all over the county hitting it at the same time.

FileMaker的数据库服务最多可分布在3台机器之间，使其具有web服务的基本负载平衡能力。虽然FileMaker很容易支持数百个用户，但如果您同时访问数千个用户，那么许多SQL纯数据库(如Oracle、MS SQL Server、MySQL、Postgres)的设计目的是更好地将负载分散到更多的机器上。基本上，如果您有高并发事务，FileMaker不是您的解决方案。例如，一家公司拥有来自全国各地的多个销售点终端，同时对其进行打击。

While FileMaker supports SQL and PHP, using it only that way is a waste of the money spent on the license for the FileMaker User Interface. It would not be a cost effective solution to develop a web front end and pay the full FileMaker license cost for only a backend. So, FileMaker's support of PHP and SQL is best combined with companies that have an in-house solution for staff, but also want to integrate that with their web development team for outside customers.

虽然FileMaker支持SQL和PHP，但只使用它将浪费用于FileMaker用户界面的许可证的钱。开发web前端并仅为后端支付完整的FileMaker许可证成本并不是一个有效的解决方案。因此，FileMaker对PHP和SQL的支持最好与拥有内部员工解决方案的公司结合在一起，但也希望将其与外部客户的web开发团队集成在一起。

One last note is that FileMaker's tight integration of schema and User Interface makes security much easier. Obviously you have to set up the groups and users and I usually integrate FileMaker with Active Directory (or Open Directory). But when you use the FileMaker Client and Server connections, turning on encryption security is a single checkbox on the server. FileMaker handles all of the certificates and uses an AES 256bit cipher (at least since version 11, maybe before then too). Currently, the US Government considers that approved for up to and including the first level of Top Secret communications. In typical SQL systems, there is a lot of work to configure security on the database end as well as the user interface end of things and it is much more work than a single checkbox.

最后一点要注意的是，FileMaker对模式和用户界面的紧密集成使得安全性更加容易。显然，您必须设置组和用户，我通常将FileMaker与Active Directory(或Open Directory)集成在一起。但是，当您使用FileMaker客户端和服务器连接时，打开加密安全性是服务器上的一个复选框。FileMaker处理所有证书，并使用AES 256bit密码(至少从第11版开始，可能在那之前也是)。目前，美国*认为，最高机密级别的通信已获得批准，并包括第一级机密通信。在典型的SQL系统中，要在数据库端和用户界面端配置安全性有很多工作要做，这比一个复选框要复杂得多。

FileMaker's target audience has been small to medium sized companies, usually with 5 to 200 users, and it is a well priced product for rapid application development of databases for companies of that size.

FileMaker的目标客户是中小型企业，通常有5至200名用户，对于此类企业的数据库快速应用开发来说，FileMaker是一款价格合理的产品。

And I can't end this comment without commenting on how easy it is to create and deploy a mobile solution on iOS devices like iPads and iPhones. FileMaker Go is a free app for use on these mobile devices and they fully support the same user interface and security. In fact, I am aware of one company that uses FileMaker as a front end interface for their Oracle database simply for access on iPhones. Expect a lot more in the mobile market in the future and FileMaker is clearly targeting mobile users.

在评论结尾处，我不能不评论在ipad和iphone等iOS设备上创建和部署移动解决方案是多么容易。FileMaker Go是一个免费的应用程序，可以在这些移动设备上使用，它们完全支持相同的用户界面和安全性。事实上，我知道有一家公司使用FileMaker作为其Oracle数据库的前端接口，只是为了在iphone*问。预计未来手机市场将会有更多的用户，而FileMaker显然是针对移动用户的。

#13

i've been using FM for more than a year now. i'm doing and providing solutions for SMBs using the SQL standard for several years. i love those SQL stuff, but just a year a ago i run through FM Pro 9 and have it a try. amazingly, i got all i wanted in just a short time. in my experience as developer, FM Pro impressed me the way it does things.

我使用FM已经一年多了。几年来，我一直在使用SQL标准为smb提供解决方案。我喜欢这些SQL的东西，但就在一年前，我尝试了FM Pro 9。令人惊讶的是，我在很短的时间内得到了我想要的一切。在我作为开发人员的经验中，FM Pro给我留下了深刻的印象。

true enough, FM is not an industry database standard but a good number of its features can compensate to what "standard" is being required of. FM pro has live connectivity to MySQL, MS SQL Server and Oracle. for me, it doesn't make sense to speak about standard if you can move your data around from FM to other platforms and vice-versa.

的确，FM不是一个行业数据库标准，但是它的许多特性可以弥补所需要的“标准”。FM pro可以实时连接到MySQL、MS SQL Server和Oracle。对我来说，如果您可以将数据从FM移动到其他平台，反之亦然，那么谈论标准就没有意义了。

well, this note can't make that much convincing. it's good to try it for yourself... especially now that FM has its new version 10. believe me... you'll love it...

好吧，这张纸条并不能让人信服。你可以自己尝试一下……特别是现在FM有了新的版本10。相信我……你会喜欢它…

happy computing.

快乐的计算。

#14

Two points seem to dominate this discussion and need consideration:

有两点似乎主导了这一讨论并需要考虑:

Non-Standard and what Government Agencies are doing.

非标准和*机构正在做的事情。

Let's consider the small business owner or the single user both of whom a creating databases to meet their needs.

让我们考虑一下小型企业所有者或单个用户，他们都是创建数据库以满足他们的需求。

Now it doesn't matter what the government is doing, this is your database for your employees. Do what you want (as long as its legal, of course).

现在不管*在做什么，这是你的员工数据库。做你想做的(当然，只要合法)。

Non-Standard, well often this is the best idea since what you want to do works for you. Name your fields and tables as you like and later on rename this as you prefer. Don't try this with dbf or sql... Anyone remember those 'standard' file names bks1999.dbf bks2000.dbf Keep in mind that 'standards' exist because someone else wrote them before you arrived, not because they are the best possible idea.

非标准的，通常这是最好的主意，因为你想做的对你来说是有用的。按自己的喜好命名字段和表，稍后再按自己的喜好重命名。不要在dbf或sql中尝试这一点……任何人都记得那些“标准”文件名bks1999。dbf bks2000。dbf要记住，“标准”的存在，是因为在您到达之前有其他人编写它们，而不是因为它们是最好的想法。

And yes, there are a lot of 'bad' Filemaker solutions but they are working and supporting hundreds of thousands of people. But try to improve one of these bad solutions and compare that effort to improve a similarly bad dbf solution. A renamed field filters effortlessly through thousands of scripts and scripts in related Filemaker files. In a dbf solution it can become a nightmare as each instance has to be manually retyped.

是的，有很多“不好的”Filemaker解决方案，但他们正在工作和支持成千上万的人。但是，请尝试改进其中一个糟糕的解决方案，并将改进类似糟糕的dbf解决方案的努力进行比较。一个重命名的字段可以轻松地通过相关的Filemaker文件中的数千个脚本和脚本进行筛选。在dbf解决方案中，由于每个实例都必须手动重新键入，因此可能会成为一场噩梦。

One real test would be to compare how easily Filemaker can work with SQL, etc. as compared to other applications. That might be interesting. I've never done that but I bet I could create a working file in very little time that works with such data.

一个真正的测试是比较Filemaker与SQL等应用程序相比能够多容易地工作。这可能是有趣的。我从来没有这样做过，但我打赌我可以在非常短的时间内创建一个工作文件来处理这些数据。

I have always said that every developer should use and be familiar with all of the tools.

我总是说每个开发人员都应该使用并熟悉所有的工具。

25 years with Filemaker Pro, 3 years with FoxPro, 2 with 4D, etc.

25年Filemaker Pro, 3年FoxPro, 2年4D等。

#15

Just to add my 2¢ to the already given answers: Everything everyone has written in the voted answers is true about Filemaker. The product is robust enough to warrant both positive and negative opinions.

就加我2¢已经给出答案:所有的每个人都写在答案投票是对Filemaker。该产品足够强大，可以同时支持正面和负面的观点。

#16

I'm not a pro enough to speak to your concerns but there are a number of large complex applications written in FMP that you may want to look at. Jungle Software is a good place to start. The down side to FMP for me as a user of some of those apps is that they come with a stack of files. The runtime of a FMP application isn't packaged as a bundle so it can look a bit complex with a large app. We did some tests a long time back because FMP had a reputation of being slow. At that time (12 years ago) FMP needed to index the db or it was slow but once it was indexed it was as fast as anything else we tested. It's big upside for semi pros is that it is very easy to do basic stuff and end up with working tool. My experience with Access was extremely negative so I wouldn't compare it at all with FMP.

我不是一个专业人士，不能说出您的担忧，但是有许多大型复杂的应用程序是用FMP编写的，您可能想看看。丛林软件是一个很好的起点。作为其中一些应用的用户，FMP的缺点是它们附带了一堆文件。FMP应用程序的运行时并没有打包成一个包，因此使用大型应用程序会显得有点复杂。那时(12年前)FMP需要索引db或者它很慢，但是一旦它被索引，它就和我们测试过的任何东西一样快。对于半专业人员来说，它的好处是很容易做一些基本的事情，最终使用工作工具。我的访问经验是非常负面的，所以我不会与FMP进行比较。

In the end it doesn't really mater what it was written in, if the software does what you want and is stable buy it. If it doesn't don't. It is very easy to get data in and out of FMP so the proprietaryness of the db format doesn't really enter into it.

最后，如果软件做了你想要的，并且是稳定的购买，它实际上并没有真正意义上的东西。如果它不不。在FMP中输入和输出数据非常容易，因此db格式的所有权并没有真正进入它。