Large multiple client solution - best practice?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Large multiple client solution - best practice?

David Powell
Dear Experts,

I have a new large project solution under discussion that will be used by
potentially many different clients simultaneously.

For security reasons the product owner has a preference to have separate
solution files for the different clients, even going as far as to host on
different server instances.

I was planning on working with the separation model so in the most case
only the UI file would need to be updated, and I've successfully used
FMRefresh in the past to manage code updates.

However,hosting the same code in duplicate files on the same server, would
require unique file names, which would create file linking issues.

Hosting duplicates of the same solution files across different server
instances would add to the licensing and hosting expense along with the
codebase management issues.

I wonder if any of you have experience or guidance in these kinds of
scenarios and what FileMaker best practice might be.


Thank you and best regards,
David

--
David Powell
Wulfgang Ltd
e: [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Large multiple client solution - best practice?

Mike Duncan
FileMaker 16 just introduced a new feature that allows you to reference
external data sources with a variable. That would allow you to name your
files differently and reference them programmatically. Of course, if you
have to have different server instances, it wouldn't be an issue.

Mike

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:11 AM, David Powell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Experts,
>
> I have a new large project solution under discussion that will be used by
> potentially many different clients simultaneously.
>
> For security reasons the product owner has a preference to have separate
> solution files for the different clients, even going as far as to host on
> different server instances.
>
> I was planning on working with the separation model so in the most case
> only the UI file would need to be updated, and I've successfully used
> FMRefresh in the past to manage code updates.
>
> However,hosting the same code in duplicate files on the same server, would
> require unique file names, which would create file linking issues.
>
> Hosting duplicates of the same solution files across different server
> instances would add to the licensing and hosting expense along with the
> codebase management issues.
>
> I wonder if any of you have experience or guidance in these kinds of
> scenarios and what FileMaker best practice might be.
>
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> David
>
> --
> David Powell
> Wulfgang Ltd
> e: [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>
_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Large multiple client solution - best practice?

tim ballering-2
In reply to this post by David Powell
This sounds like the perfect use instance for FMP 16 file references by variables.  We talked about this in the hallway after a session at Pause of Error this spring.   I find this new feature so intriguing and powerful for multi user vertical solutions.  A second application is to be able to work on a dummy data file when doing live UI updates.  There are probably other use cases as well.

Here is a link to a simple demo I did for the Miami FMUG.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0nbojiik3fjy7u/AACga2Br9FwlQRXCPcO9wy9Pa?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0nbojiik3fjy7u/AACga2Br9FwlQRXCPcO9wy9Pa?dl=0>

Log in as any of these three users to access different data files with corresponding names.

account_1_data
account_2_data
account_13_data

no password.

No user has access to any other users’ data files.

Take it a part and look at it.  It is pretty simple, but if you have questions let me know.

 
Tim Ballering
[hidden email]



> On Jul 17, 2017, at 6:11 AM, David Powell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear Experts,
>
> I have a new large project solution under discussion that will be used by
> potentially many different clients simultaneously.
>
> For security reasons the product owner has a preference to have separate
> solution files for the different clients, even going as far as to host on
> different server instances.
>
> I was planning on working with the separation model so in the most case
> only the UI file would need to be updated, and I've successfully used
> FMRefresh in the past to manage code updates.
>
> However,hosting the same code in duplicate files on the same server, would
> require unique file names, which would create file linking issues.
>
> Hosting duplicates of the same solution files across different server
> instances would add to the licensing and hosting expense along with the
> codebase management issues.
>
> I wonder if any of you have experience or guidance in these kinds of
> scenarios and what FileMaker best practice might be.
>
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> David
>
> --
> David Powell
> Wulfgang Ltd
> e: [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Large multiple client solution - best practice?

Peter Doern
Thank you for sharing this, Tim... a very exciting feature.

Peter

-----

[hidden email]
905-596-0154
www.thebridge.ca

Skype: peterdoern



> On Jul 17, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Tim Ballering <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This sounds like the perfect use instance for FMP 16 file references by variables.  We talked about this in the hallway after a session at Pause of Error this spring.   I find this new feature so intriguing and powerful for multi user vertical solutions.  A second application is to be able to work on a dummy data file when doing live UI updates.  There are probably other use cases as well.
>
> Here is a link to a simple demo I did for the Miami FMUG.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0nbojiik3fjy7u/AACga2Br9FwlQRXCPcO9wy9Pa?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0nbojiik3fjy7u/AACga2Br9FwlQRXCPcO9wy9Pa?dl=0>
>
> Log in as any of these three users to access different data files with corresponding names.
>
> account_1_data
> account_2_data
> account_13_data
>
> no password.
>
> No user has access to any other users’ data files.
>
> Take it a part and look at it.  It is pretty simple, but if you have questions let me know.
>
>
> Tim Ballering
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 6:11 AM, David Powell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Experts,
>>
>> I have a new large project solution under discussion that will be used by
>> potentially many different clients simultaneously.
>>
>> For security reasons the product owner has a preference to have separate
>> solution files for the different clients, even going as far as to host on
>> different server instances.
>>
>> I was planning on working with the separation model so in the most case
>> only the UI file would need to be updated, and I've successfully used
>> FMRefresh in the past to manage code updates.
>>
>> However,hosting the same code in duplicate files on the same server, would
>> require unique file names, which would create file linking issues.
>>
>> Hosting duplicates of the same solution files across different server
>> instances would add to the licensing and hosting expense along with the
>> codebase management issues.
>>
>> I wonder if any of you have experience or guidance in these kinds of
>> scenarios and what FileMaker best practice might be.
>>
>>
>> Thank you and best regards,
>> David
>>
>> --
>> David Powell
>> Wulfgang Ltd
>> e: [hidden email]
>> _______________________________________________
>> FMPexperts mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Large multiple client solution - best practice?

Bob Gossom
In reply to this post by David Powell
David,

As others have mentioned, calculated file reference will help immensely with this. You’ve worked with FMRefresh, so you know it’s capabilities (I haven’t).

But that said, this is add this level of complexity to an already large project is pretty daunting. Not just during development, but for years to come.

From a security point of view, I don’t see much difference between using variables to calc the file references, and field level validations to control access between clients. in fact, variable file paths seem less secure: it’s easier to hack variables than field level validations. You can plug the security holes regarding variables, but this would only make the two methodologies comparable, not make variable paths better. Using separate files may “feel" more secure, but may not actually be more secure. It will certainly be more complex, which in the long run can impact both security and integrity (mostly through potential programming errors related to the complexity).

Something to consider…

Bob Gossom
Absolute Advantage, Inc.

> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:11 AM, David Powell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear Experts,
>
> I have a new large project solution under discussion that will be used by
> potentially many different clients simultaneously.
>
> For security reasons the product owner has a preference to have separate
> solution files for the different clients, even going as far as to host on
> different server instances.
>
> I was planning on working with the separation model so in the most case
> only the UI file would need to be updated, and I've successfully used
> FMRefresh in the past to manage code updates.
>
> However,hosting the same code in duplicate files on the same server, would
> require unique file names, which would create file linking issues.
>
> Hosting duplicates of the same solution files across different server
> instances would add to the licensing and hosting expense along with the
> codebase management issues.
>
> I wonder if any of you have experience or guidance in these kinds of
> scenarios and what FileMaker best practice might be.
>
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> David
>
> --
> David Powell
> Wulfgang Ltd
> e: [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Large multiple client solution - best practice?

Jonathan Fletcher-2
I agree with Bob here. You’re setting yourself up for increased maintenance and higher “technical debt.”

j.


> On Jul 17, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Bob Gossom <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> As others have mentioned, calculated file reference will help immensely with this. You’ve worked with FMRefresh, so you know it’s capabilities (I haven’t).
>
> But that said, this is add this level of complexity to an already large project is pretty daunting. Not just during development, but for years to come.
>
> From a security point of view, I don’t see much difference between using variables to calc the file references, and field level validations to control access between clients. in fact, variable file paths seem less secure: it’s easier to hack variables than field level validations. You can plug the security holes regarding variables, but this would only make the two methodologies comparable, not make variable paths better. Using separate files may “feel" more secure, but may not actually be more secure. It will certainly be more complex, which in the long run can impact both security and integrity (mostly through potential programming errors related to the complexity).
>
> Something to consider…
>
> Bob Gossom
> Absolute Advantage, Inc.
>
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:11 AM, David Powell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Experts,
>>
>> I have a new large project solution under discussion that will be used by
>> potentially many different clients simultaneously.
>>
>> For security reasons the product owner has a preference to have separate
>> solution files for the different clients, even going as far as to host on
>> different server instances.
>>
>> I was planning on working with the separation model so in the most case
>> only the UI file would need to be updated, and I've successfully used
>> FMRefresh in the past to manage code updates.
>>
>> However,hosting the same code in duplicate files on the same server, would
>> require unique file names, which would create file linking issues.
>>
>> Hosting duplicates of the same solution files across different server
>> instances would add to the licensing and hosting expense along with the
>> codebase management issues.
>>
>> I wonder if any of you have experience or guidance in these kinds of
>> scenarios and what FileMaker best practice might be.
>>
>>
>> Thank you and best regards,
>> David
>>
>> --
>> David Powell
>> Wulfgang Ltd
>> e: [hidden email]
>> _______________________________________________
>> FMPexperts mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

--
Jonathan Fletcher
[hidden email]

Kentuckiana FileMaker Developers Group
Next Meeting: 7/25/17

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Large multiple client solution - best practice?

Richard DeShong
Having each client on a separate server has advantages.  The main one
being that if one client has a data problem, or the server fails, then
the affect is confined to the one client.

But, as others have mentioned, and Jonathan has labeled, there is a
technical debt that grows with each client.  Maintenance of multiple
server, backups processes and management.  And think about the
possibility of adding redundancy into a multi-server environment.


On 7/17/2017 10:27 AM, Jonathan Fletcher wrote:

> I agree with Bob here. You’re setting yourself up for increased maintenance and higher “technical debt.”
>
> j.
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Bob Gossom <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> As others have mentioned, calculated file reference will help immensely with this. You’ve worked with FMRefresh, so you know it’s capabilities (I haven’t).
>>
>> But that said, this is add this level of complexity to an already large project is pretty daunting. Not just during development, but for years to come.
>>
>>  From a security point of view, I don’t see much difference between using variables to calc the file references, and field level validations to control access between clients. in fact, variable file paths seem less secure: it’s easier to hack variables than field level validations. You can plug the security holes regarding variables, but this would only make the two methodologies comparable, not make variable paths better. Using separate files may “feel" more secure, but may not actually be more secure. It will certainly be more complex, which in the long run can impact both security and integrity (mostly through potential programming errors related to the complexity).
>>
>> Something to consider…
>>
>> Bob Gossom
>> Absolute Advantage, Inc.
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:11 AM, David Powell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Experts,
>>>
>>> I have a new large project solution under discussion that will be used by
>>> potentially many different clients simultaneously.
>>>
>>> For security reasons the product owner has a preference to have separate
>>> solution files for the different clients, even going as far as to host on
>>> different server instances.
>>>
>>> I was planning on working with the separation model so in the most case
>>> only the UI file would need to be updated, and I've successfully used
>>> FMRefresh in the past to manage code updates.
>>>
>>> However,hosting the same code in duplicate files on the same server, would
>>> require unique file names, which would create file linking issues.
>>>
>>> Hosting duplicates of the same solution files across different server
>>> instances would add to the licensing and hosting expense along with the
>>> codebase management issues.
>>>
>>> I wonder if any of you have experience or guidance in these kinds of
>>> scenarios and what FileMaker best practice might be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>> David
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Powell
>>> Wulfgang Ltd
>>> e: [hidden email]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FMPexperts mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>> _______________________________________________
>> FMPexperts mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
> --
> Jonathan Fletcher
> [hidden email]
>
> Kentuckiana FileMaker Developers Group
> Next Meeting: 7/25/17
>
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

--
Richard DeShong
Logic Tools
510-642-5123 office
925-285-1088 cell

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Large multiple client solution - best practice?

tim ballering-2
In reply to this post by tim ballering-2
Just to clarify the demo, as I received two questions on this:

There are three different user data files and a single UI file.  

Start by opening   _Main_UI_DB  

Enter the user names with a blank password:  

Users:  
account_1_data
account_2_data
account_3_data

The data file names and user names are the same in this demo.

Tim Ballering
[hidden email]



> On Jul 17, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Tim Ballering <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This sounds like the perfect use instance for FMP 16 file references by variables.  We talked about this in the hallway after a session at Pause of Error this spring.   I find this new feature so intriguing and powerful for multi user vertical solutions.  A second application is to be able to work on a dummy data file when doing live UI updates.  There are probably other use cases as well.
>
> Here is a link to a simple demo I did for the Miami FMUG.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0nbojiik3fjy7u/AACga2Br9FwlQRXCPcO9wy9Pa?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0nbojiik3fjy7u/AACga2Br9FwlQRXCPcO9wy9Pa?dl=0>
>
> Log in as any of these three users to access different data files with corresponding names.
>
> account_1_data
> account_2_data
> account_13_data
>
> no password.
>
> No user has access to any other users’ data files.
>
> Take it a part and look at it.  It is pretty simple, but if you have questions let me know.
>
>
> Tim Ballering
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 6:11 AM, David Powell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Experts,
>>
>> I have a new large project solution under discussion that will be used by
>> potentially many different clients simultaneously.
>>
>> For security reasons the product owner has a preference to have separate
>> solution files for the different clients, even going as far as to host on
>> different server instances.
>>
>> I was planning on working with the separation model so in the most case
>> only the UI file would need to be updated, and I've successfully used
>> FMRefresh in the past to manage code updates.
>>
>> However,hosting the same code in duplicate files on the same server, would
>> require unique file names, which would create file linking issues.
>>
>> Hosting duplicates of the same solution files across different server
>> instances would add to the licensing and hosting expense along with the
>> codebase management issues.
>>
>> I wonder if any of you have experience or guidance in these kinds of
>> scenarios and what FileMaker best practice might be.
>>
>>
>> Thank you and best regards,
>> David
>>
>> --
>> David Powell
>> Wulfgang Ltd
>> e: [hidden email]
>> _______________________________________________
>> FMPexperts mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au

_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Large multiple client solution - best practice?

David Powell
Thank you Mike and Tim for alerting me to this very useful new functionality. It certainly warrants further investigation which I'll be doing as soon I've updated my dev platform to FMS16.
And thank you Tim for sharing the example files which will speed things along for sure!

I also appreciate everyone else sharing insights that are proving helpful in discussing the potential technical debt that could arise in the future. Better to plan for it now rather than be bitten down the line!

I'll update should there be any interesting developments.
Cheers
DP

> On 17 Jul 2017, at 21:04, Tim Ballering <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify the demo, as I received two questions on this:
>
> There are three different user data files and a single UI file.  
>
> Start by opening   _Main_UI_DB  
>
> Enter the user names with a blank password:  
>
> Users:  
> account_1_data
> account_2_data
> account_3_data
>
> The data file names and user names are the same in this demo.
>
> Tim Ballering
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Tim Ballering <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> This sounds like the perfect use instance for FMP 16 file references by variables.  We talked about this in the hallway after a session at Pause of Error this spring.   I find this new feature so intriguing and powerful for multi user vertical solutions.  A second application is to be able to work on a dummy data file when doing live UI updates.  There are probably other use cases as well.
>>
>> Here is a link to a simple demo I did for the Miami FMUG.
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0nbojiik3fjy7u/AACga2Br9FwlQRXCPcO9wy9Pa?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c0nbojiik3fjy7u/AACga2Br9FwlQRXCPcO9wy9Pa?dl=0>
>>
>> Log in as any of these three users to access different data files with corresponding names.
>>
>> account_1_data
>> account_2_data
>> account_13_data
>>
>> no password.
>>
>> No user has access to any other users’ data files.
>>
>> Take it a part and look at it.  It is pretty simple, but if you have questions let me know.
>>
>>
>> Tim Ballering
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 6:11 AM, David Powell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Experts,
>>>
>>> I have a new large project solution under discussion that will be used by
>>> potentially many different clients simultaneously.
>>>
>>> For security reasons the product owner has a preference to have separate
>>> solution files for the different clients, even going as far as to host on
>>> different server instances.
>>>
>>> I was planning on working with the separation model so in the most case
>>> only the UI file would need to be updated, and I've successfully used
>>> FMRefresh in the past to manage code updates.
>>>
>>> However,hosting the same code in duplicate files on the same server, would
>>> require unique file names, which would create file linking issues.
>>>
>>> Hosting duplicates of the same solution files across different server
>>> instances would add to the licensing and hosting expense along with the
>>> codebase management issues.
>>>
>>> I wonder if any of you have experience or guidance in these kinds of
>>> scenarios and what FileMaker best practice might be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>> David
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Powell
>>> Wulfgang Ltd
>>> e: [hidden email]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FMPexperts mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FMPexperts mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> FMPexperts mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
_______________________________________________
FMPexperts mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ironclad.net.au/listinfo.cgi/fmpexperts-ironclad.net.au
Loading...