Right now, the devs all have a their local dev environments with a snapshot of the production database - which they can twist, churn and beat up the data without affecting anyone but themselves.
These snapshots are starting to get large, and a data import of them is starting to take close to an hour.
Any better recommendations at maintaining dev data? The dev data can be ripped apart for potential changes, and then need to be put back together if a change idea was bad, etc.
I try to use the following approach:
Developers maintain a baseline script which is in version control and sets up the database schema from scratch. It creates the schema just as it exists in the production database.
They also maintain a 'script' to setup test data. This 'script' uses actually production classes and sometimes a little DSL on top of that. In order to be reasonable fast the script generates only minimal testdata. I recommend making it part of the definition of done to create some testdate for any new feature build.
Developers can run these scripts at will on their database (or database schema). The first script is also used as a basis for running automatic database tests.
Result of any work done by the developers is a migration script. i.e. a script that can be applied to the production database to bring it to the new desired state, including updates to data.
These migrations can be tested on snapshots of the production database. Snapshots of the production database are also used to run load and performance tests.
Only for the snapshots I use database specific tools. Mostly everything else is written in the main programming language (java for me) so the developers feel comfortable using it.
I often encounter resistance to this approache ("too many scripts", "too many databases", "I don't want to use version control, because my db modelling tool doesn't support it"). But appart from loads of manual works I don't really see an alternative.
In my experience, having a centralized DB+data for each environment: Development, Testing+Integration and Production has been the best approach.
Development: let the developers do whatever they want with it. If production-like data is required, obfuscate/remove sensitive data. The more lightweight this database is, the better for you to move, maintain and backup.
Testing: use it to simulate the production environment and let the
testers to input/retrieve all the data the want but only through your
application interfaces. This environment also allows you to test your deployments
before sending them to production, you don't want a bad DB installer
to leave the production app in an unusable state. If required, you
can input this environment with production data but obfuscate/remove
sensitive data too. You could use high volumes to spot performance issues before they get to production.
Production: Leave your production data/environment alone, you don't
want sensitive data to end up in the wrong hands or a DB error configuration to allow the developers to change data accidentally.
Usually, as a developer, you want a few things from the dev database set up.
You want it to be easy to work with - it should be straightforward to make changes, keep those changes versioned, and apply them to other environments.
You want to have representative data - and have that data be predictable. For instance, if you're building an invoicing system, you want clients with known credit limits so you can write test cases to track what happens to them as issue an invoice, have it paid etc. (Integration tests, rather than unit tests).
You want to be able to query against representative data volumes so performance issues arise in dev as well as production.
You never, ever want to be able to affect "real" data - for instance, you want email addresses and names to be anonymous, you want passwords to be re-set.
Continuous Database Integration offers a solution to most of this - and also solves the "it takes an hour to set up a database for a development environment" issue.
I'm in the same situation. I had the idea to move archive data to a read-only filegroup so that I only need to backup and restore it once. The non-archive data would be much smaller and could be copied more frequently to backup storage and to the dev machines.
Of course that only works if it is possible to split a big portion of the database size off to a read-only filegroup.
A different idea would be to restore once on a dev machine and use a database snapshot for quick restore to a clean state. I found that one particularly useful.
Some of the people in my project seem to think that using a common development database with everyone connecting to it is the best thing. I think that it isn't and each developer having his own database (with periodic updated data dumps) is the best. Am I right or wrong? Have you encountered any problems in any of these approaches?
Disk space and CPU should be cheap enough that every developer can run their own instance of the database, with an automated build under version control. This is needed to allow developers to be bold in hacking on the database, in isolation from any other developer's concurrent hacking.
The caveat being, of course, that any changes they make to their private instance are useless to anyone else unless it can be automatically applied during the build process. So there needs to be a firm policy that application code can't depend on any database state unless that state is represented by version-controlled, unit-tested changes to the DDL.
For an excellent guide on the theory and practice of treating the database definition as another part of the project code, and coordinating changes and refactorings, see Refactoring Databases: Evolutionary Database Design by Scott W. Ambler and Pramod Sadalage.
I like having my own copy of the database for development, because it gives you the flexibility to rapidly change things without worrying how it will impact others.
However, if all the developers are hacking away on their own copy of the database, it becomes more and more difficult to merge everyone's work together in the end.
I think you can get the best of both worlds by letting developers work on a local copy during day-to-day development, but each developer should probably merge their work into a common copy on a pretty regular basis. Writing a lot of unit tests helps too.
We share a single database amongst all our developer (20-odd) but we've got it structured so that everyone has their own tables.
You don't need a separate database per developer if you structure the application right. It should be configurable which database or table-prefix it uses anyway so you can easily move it between instances (unit test, system test, acceptance test, production, disaster recovery and so on).
The advantage to using a single database is that the cost of maintenance is amortized. You don't have your DBAs trying to handle a lot of databases (or, if you're a small-DB shop, you don't have every developer trying to maintain their own database when they're better utilized in developing).
Having a single point of Failure is not a good thing isn't it?
I prefer a single, shared database. But it's very dependent on the situation and the applications being developed.
What works for me may not work for you. Go with your gut.
If you are working with Hibernate or any hibernate-based platform you can configure your database to be created when you start your server (create-drop option). This is very useful when you are adding new attributes to your classes. If this is the case each developer must have his own copy of the DB.
If you are not changing the DB structure at all then you can use a single shared DB.
In this second case is not a must. I prefer to have my own DB where I can do whatever I want. On the other hand remember that some queries can take a lot of time and this will affect your whole team if you are sharing a DB.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
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.
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.
Many thanks
Mike Thomas
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.
Pros:
Easy to get started
Easy to deploy locally, turn on sharing and connect from another client
Cross-platform (Mac OS X, Windows, iOS)
There are many plugins available to extend functionality
Includes starter solutions
Anyone with access can edit the program
For the most part, drag and drop programming
Changing field/database/script names after the fact is free
Has some neat built in tricks like built in graphs, tab controls, web viewers
Built in support for importing exporting excel, cvs, tab-formatted
Cons:
Inflexible: it does what it does well, but if you need more your out of luck for the most part
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
The plugins required to extend functionality can be expensive as well
Pretty much only drag and drop programming, you can only use predefined script steps, relationships are made by making a graph
Source control is problem
Lack of scalability
Unable to copy and paste/import or export some items from solutions
Requires the mouse to access functionality
Layout design is fairly static and dated (this is improving with the Filemaker 12 and above)
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.
Pros:
It's cheap
Cons:
It's cheap(ly made)
It's non-standard (easy to find
MySQL/Oracle/MSSQL/Access experts
but nobody knows 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.
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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?
Happy to elaborate further if there's more interest.
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 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.
Here's a developer's perspective on some limitations I've found when teaming FileMaker with other back-ends and ODBC clients:
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.
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.
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.
Here's another example of 3 different queries and how long they took searching on two date fields:
SELECT id FROM table
WHERE datefield1 = {d '2014-03-26'}
.5 seconds
SELECT id FROM table
WHERE datefield2 = {d '2014-03-26'}
.5 seconds
SELECT id FROM table
WHERE datefield1 = {d '2014-03-26'} OR datefield2 = {d '2014-03-26'}
1 minute 13 seconds!
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).
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.
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.
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.
If you're using the FileMaker PHP API, take note that you can't use AND and OR together in the same request.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also refer to the the appropriate version FileMaker ODBC Guide found on their website.
Just a few comments on the subject
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.
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.
While FileMaker is non-standard it does support live connection to MySQL, MS SQL Server and Oracle.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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):
I.e. something as simple as a file cabinet that can grow quite big.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
learning curve is much less than using the hard coded industry standard technology;
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;
it fits well as front end and back end solutions.
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;
FM is fits well for rapid application development that employs prototyping;
FM has many more capabilities you therein...
I suggest you try it yourself and I'm sure you'll love the stuff FM can offer!
Happy computing...
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).
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.
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.
Mike Thomas
While the comparisons to "Access for Mac" is inevitable, there are some important distinctions that have to be made.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
happy computing.
Two points seem to dominate this discussion and need consideration:
Non-Standard and what Government Agencies are doing.
Let's consider the small business owner or the single user both of whom a creating databases to meet their needs.
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).
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.
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.
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.
I have always said that every developer should use and be familiar with all of the tools.
25 years with Filemaker Pro, 3 years with FoxPro, 2 with 4D, etc.
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.
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).
So I would disagree with people saying FileMaker is non-standard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Imagine you sell an application that stores its data in a Microsoft Sql Server database. Some customers are large companies with existing Sql installations and staff to maintain them. Other customers are small companies who get the SQLEXPRESS version installed by a setup program.
The database will soon contain a lot of important data and will need backing up. Whose responsibility is this?
Should the application contain a UI for backing up the database and warn when the backup has not been run?
Or should the application just include instructions for backup in its documentation?
Or is this a problem for the customers to solve and not the programmers?
In most cases I'd expect the customer to handle backups without involving the programmers. There is, of course, nothing wrong if the customer asks you as a programmer to build backup-reminders into the application.
In some cases where the customer has little or no understanding of the technology they are using I also think it is our responsibility as system developers to inform them of what they are expected to do in terms of maintenance.
Even with professional customers I fairly often specify minimum backup requirements in documentation, simply because you get what you ask for.
If you are building software that installs SQLExpress, then you should provide the backup functionality. By default, SQLExpress doesn't come with Management Studio, and I would consider it a major usability issue to install Management Studio as part of your app (or ask the customer to do so).
The BACKUP DATABASE command is simple to execute from your application. There's really no reason not to provide this functionality.
As for customers who have an IT staff, they can still handle the backups themselves using their existing process.
Everybody wins.
It's the customer's responsibility. However,...
I believe you have three choices:
Mention the database should be backed up.
Give suggestions on how to backup the data.
Offer your services to maintain the backup procedures.
One or all three of these can be used. It all depends on what the buyer and seller are comfortable with.
Backups
From my experience a lot depends on how the database is installed and packaged with the application. If you sell an application to a customer with the database layer implementation details hidden or abstracted, then the typical customer expectation is that a backup solution is provided as part of the software. This expectation is there for a variety of reasons.
Off the top of my head, one of which is that the IT department supporting the application cannot be confident in how the backup of the db should happen for the application. Sometimes, a DB dump with some vendors can cause locking issues that interrupt normal application operation. I'm sure you can imagine other complaints an IT department might have for an application that bundles a DB.
As for installs that connect to a existing DB, I think it is a reasonable expectation that the DB admins for those databases handle backups. However, it is very important that you - the application provider document what needs to be backed up. Are there sequences and indexes that need to have their precise order persevered? Are there terabytes of data created that may not be important to your customer if lost? What about the state of the application during the backup (as mentioned above)? Does the application need to be shutdown?
Restores
More problematic is restores. What if a partial restore of data is needed? How could this corrupt your data store? Does your application store data anywhere else (files, network) that can be put in an unreliable/broken state as a result of a historical backup?
Anyways, a long story short - when I'm a customer, I feel a lot better knowing that the application vendor has QAed the backup/restore process and provides support. Actually, the was a requirement of a large customer of my current project. They were more than capable of managing a database, rather they wanted us to take responsibility for our own data and guarantee that the process would be flawless.
In the end, your mileage may vary depending on the implementation, requirements and industry expectations of your specific application.
My personal opinion is that instructions for back up of the data is really important. Most customers should be able to handle making back-ups themselves without needing a GUI, and a GUI will cost some time and money to develop.
Providing instructions for back up will help make sure that they know what they need to do, and know that it is their responsibility. Good instructions will also (hopefully) reduce the amount of support they will require :) Most non-technical users I know these days at least know they need to back up their important documents to CD's, with some instructions they should be able to back up their database on their own.
I think a GUI for backups is only essential in special occasions, where the users will not be technically proficient at all, data security is important, and the users wont have access to (or want to spend money on) IT staff.
Having the application run a backup solves the problem of "How do I get my data back that I accidentally deleted?", but it does not solve the problem of a crashed hard drive. Your app isn't going to make sure the backup goes to tape and that the tape gets properly stored off-site. Be part of the best solution that forces them to take some responsibility for their data. Don't lead them into a false sense of security because they received a message box indicating the backup is complete.
If you're providing SQL Server Express it is important to discuss the requirement of backing up with your customers (of course only if that is possible).
A number of people on here have suggested that you let the users IT deal with the problem. This is of course completely valid however it does have the inherent problem that a worrying number of IT support staff have no idea about database admin and even less idea how to implement a nice back up strategy.
Consider carefully the needs of your individual customers, and perhaps add automatic backups as a bolt-on, or for free if you're feeling generous.
After all this is SQL Express, many customers will not expect to have to know anything about database backups.
A question regarding a DB development project. The database already exist and is rather large (several TBs).
What do you use for version control in DB development?
How do you control concurrent changes to the data model by different teams
What is your approach to the Unit Testing in the DB development
How do you deal with the sensitive data if the DB owners do not know what is sensitive? What is your approach to the data obfuscation? What are your obfuscation techniques?
How do you work on a large DB from several locations?
Please answer one or more of the items as you see fit. Each answer will be reviewed separately. Thank you very much!
EDIT:
A related question with good answers to the p.1 is here: How do you version your database schema?
For most of these, while the tools don't apply the general processes of code development do:
Maintain a development system separate from production with enough data to get useful performance metrics when testing a new model
This system has unit tests (SQL queries, commits, aborted atomic commits, etc) written and run against it prior to every release.
There are official 'releases'
The development database is the source control system itself - in other words the database is modeled and held in the database with sign-ins and rollbacks, etc. It's non-trivial, and doesn't solve every problem, but given the lack of good VCS for databases it works.
Roll-outs (after testing, integration, etc) consist of just the new database structure going to the production site - the modeling tables are not replicated there.
For 4, "How do you deal with the sensitive data if the DB owners do not know what is sensitive? What is your approach to the data obfuscation?"
"Sensitive until proven innocuous" is my mantra. Unless someone makes a case for not adequately protecting any data from visibility (either internal or external) then my default mode is to protect it.
Cases come up later on where we'll open data up for perfromance, reporting, etc reasons, but a documented business case with the appropriate signatures is required.