FileMaker for journals database?

[Joseph Murphy]

One thing to consider is whether you really want to provide a 
searchable database to your patrons. It may be acceptable to use the 
database to generate static HTML pages, which you can then slice and 
dice more efficiently on the back end. I did this back in the mists of 
time with FileMaker and Lasso (although I can no longer remember the 
versions) to manage a list of library databases.

Our judgement was that all the databases were cataloged, so 
searchability was already available. The lists were a way to provide 
browseability, both for the whole collection of databases and for 
subject groups. The database was just a way to save us the work of 
updating multiple pages, and to make sure that those pages were 
consistent. Update the database once, run the relevant "reports" 
(formatted with HTML), and move the files from the database server to 
the web server. The users got the performance of static HTML on the web 
server, and the network folks didn't have to worry about security on an 
additional Intenet-accessible machine. The Webmaster (me) got a little 
more work, but we were adding and dropping databases infrequently 
enough that it wasn't that big a deal, after the initial investment.

Just another option of how it might work, depending on what services 
you see your users actually using (and what resources are currently 
available).

Joseph M. Murphy
Librarian and Technology Consultant
Library and Information Services
Kenyon College
murphyjm at kenyon.edu
740/427-5120

On Mar 16, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Alnisa Allgood wrote:

> At 9:44 PM -0800 3/15/05, RCH Library wrote:
>> hi folks,
>>
>> our journals list is becoming too large to manage in static html, and 
>> we've
>> been considering moving to a databse environment for some time.
>>
>> if we make a request for our webmaster and his cronies to build us 
>> one, it
>> may take up to a year and we will be charged for their time.
>>
>> we just want to put our journals in it, then include it in our 
>> existing
>> library site. has anyone used FileMaker Server 7 Advanced to do 
>> something
>> like this? the blurb on the website (filemaker.com) certainly sounds 
>> like
>> it will do what we want it to do.
>> i've had it on good authority (members of this list) that Access is 
>> not a
>> good idea, but what about this product? is it more stable? am i even
>> looking at the right KIND of product?
>
> FileMaker 7 can be used to do this, and is fairly easy  if your not
> worried about site traffic and speed. This doesn't mean that
> FileMaker is slow, its just that its response limits are smaller than
> say MySQL. For example, almost any database can handle 10
> simultaneous users, but 100 simultaneous users will noticeably slow
> some databases and have no effect on others.
>
> If you have or expect to have larger numbers of simultaneous users
> (as well as other reasons), FileMaker works best with middleware
> (basically an application that sits between the web and FileMaker,
> that will limit queries,  create database caches, add additional
> security, etc.  Lasso and Tango are the two better known middleware
> applications for FileMaker.  (The basics of Lasso are easy to pick
> up, but advance functionality requires a Lasso programmer).
>
> Also remember you can always start and transition--start with the
> very easy FileMaker then transition to a web solution developed by
> your programmers.  A basic script to retrieve and display information
> from a database, shouldn't take that long to create--a day (max) for
> extremely basic, longer with the more user trapping you add.  Plus
> don't overlook free or shareware products created for FileMaker or
> PHP/MySQL combo. Check out http://www.hotscripts.com or
> http://www.fmfiles.com/
>
> All and all, my recommendation to clients has typically been:
>
> * If its for internal use--use FileMaker
>           its quick, easy, and requires little programming. In fact,
> if you already have the database
>           you can get a basic solution up and running in about  30
> minutes including testing.
>
> * if its for minimal external use--use FileMaker/use MySQL
>           if you have both web and desktop database needs, use 
> FileMaker
>           if you have little to no desktop database needs, use MySQL
>
> * if you want it for general public use--use MySQL
>          obviously there are exceptions and if/thens, but if you have 
> a site,
>          expect or want the site to grow, and want the database to be
> a part of that growth
>          don't wish to consider ongoing capacity, replication, and
> distribution issues, as site grows
>          just start with a database geared for the web in the first 
> place
>
> These recommendation also ignore the question of web server type, and
> configuration issues.
>
> Starting out in either can be fairly simple, depending on your needs.
> Say you want a basic table that stores the journal name, description,
> and category/topic, coverage, publisher, format, ISSN, access_to,
> location.  Then a single table in either FileMaker or MySQL will
> handle this.
>
> Alnisa