Related
We've narrowed our selection for an ipaas down to the above 3.
Initially we're looking to pass data from a cloud based HR system to Netsuite, and from Netsuite to Salesforce, and sometimes JIRA.
i've come from a Mulesoft background which I think would be too complex for this. On the other hand it seems that Celigo is VERY drag and drop, and there's not much room for modification/customisation.
Of the three, do you have any experience/recommendations? We aren't looking for any code heavy custom APIs, most will just be simple scheduled data transfers but there may be some complexity within the field mapping, and we want to set ourselves up for the future.
I spent a few years removing Celigo from NetSuite and Salesforce. The best way I can describe Celigo is that it is like the old school anti-virus programs which were often worse than the viruses... lol... It digs itself into the end system, making removing it a nightmare.
Boomi does the job, but is very counter-intuitive, and overly complex. You can't do everything from one screen, you can't easily bounce back and forth between tasks/operations/etc. And, sometimes it is very difficult to find where endpoints are used, as they are not always shown in their "where is this used" feature. Boomi has a ton of endpoint connectors pre-built (the most, I believe), but I have not seen an easy way to just create your own. Boomi also has much more functionality than just the integrations, if that is something that may be needed.
Jitterbit, my favorite, is ridiculously simple to use. You can access everything from one main screen, you can connect to anything (as long as it can reach out to the network, or you can reach it via the network - internal or external). Jitterbit has a lot of pre-built endpoint connectors. It is also extremely easy to just create a connection to anything you want. The win with Jitterbit is that it is super easy to use, super easy to learn, it always works, they have amazing support (if you need it). I have worked with Jitterbit the most (about 6 years), and I have never been unable to complete an integration task in less that a couple of day, max.
I have extensive experience with Dell Boomi platform but none with JitterBit or Celigo. Dell Boomi offers very versatile and well supported iPaaS solution. The technical challenges of Boomi are some UI\usability issues (#W3BGUY mentioned the main ones) and the lack of out-of-the-box support for CI/CD and DevOps processes (code management, versioning, deployments etc.)
One more important component to consider here is the pricing of the platform. Boomi does charge their clients yearly connection prices. Connection is defined as a unique combination of URL, username and password. The yearly license costs vary and can range anywhere between ($1,000 - $12,000) per license per year. The price depends greatly on your integration landscape and the discounts provided so I would advise on engaging with vendor early to understand your costs. Would be great to hear from others on pricing for JitterBit and Celigo.
Boomi is also more than just an iPaaS platform. They offer other modules of their platform to customers: API Management, Boomi Flow (workflow and automation module), Master Data Hub (master data management). Some of these modules are well developed and some are in their infancy (API Management).
From my limited experience with MuleSoft platform, I share the OP's sentiments about it being too complex for simple integrations. They do provide great CI/CD and DevOps functionality though if that is something that is needed.
There is not a simple answer to a question like this. One needs to look at multiple aspects of the platform and make a decision based on multitude of factors. I would advise looking at Gartner and Forrester reports for a general guidelines and working out the pricing (initial and recurring) with the vendor.
I have only used Jitterbit, so can only comment on that. It works fine. It is pretty intuitive and easy to use, but does have some flexibility with writing your own queries, defining and mapping file formats, and choosing different transfer protocols.
I've only used the free version (which you need to host somewhere and also is not supported) and it was good enough for production tasks. If you have the luxury of time, I'd say download it and try it out. If it works for you, throw it on a server or upgrade to the cloud version.
One note: Jitterbit uses background services. If you run it locally and then decide to migrate your account to a server, you need to stop those services on your local. Otherwise, it will try to run jobs from both locations and that doesn't turn out well.
Consider checking out Choreo as well. It has a novel simultaneous code + low-code approach for integration development. And provides rich AI support for performance monitoring, debugging, and data mapping.
Disclaimer: I'm a member of the project.
The goal is to have occasionally connected clients belonging to one user running on an array of different platforms be able to share a common dataset. Server will be GNU/Linux. Platforms and devices initially targeted include: GNU/Linux, Android and Windows on x86_64, i686, ARMv7, ARMv8. Possible consideration given to OSX and iOS devices. The UI toolkit will likely be Qt5. The non-interface logic will be in c++. My code will be licensed under the GPL or AGPL.
Many applications like Google's Maps, for instance, require a reliable connection to work effectively. My design decision is that each client should be fully functional without a network connection, assuming that the user has not used a different device/platform to change the data. In such cases, only a synchronization with network access should be necessary.
Some applications are written with hand-rolled data persistence and synchronization layers customized for each platform or subset of platforms. While this is quite effective, it is beyond the available skill and manpower available (just me :) ).
Also, though I'm somewhat conditioned by past experience to think of things from a relational database perspective, the data I'm expecting is probably better suited to a JSON/NoSQL database. Though there is UNQLite, it has no more synchronization capabilities than SQLite. And things like MongoDB, CouchDB, etc. are, as far as I have found, solely targeting the data center or cloud at the moment. Really, the same seems to be true of SQL solutions. Are there truly cross platform databases that have native synchronization/replication capabilities?
I've spent the past weeks looking at a variety of options, but have found little truly useful. The closest I've seen to something useful is CouchBase; however, it seems to be rather unstable (from an API standpoint, not relating to crashes), has a huge set of dependencies, seems to be nothing but a SQLite wrapper on mobile platforms and has limited developer docs at the moment.
If there is an applicable library or toolkit, please point it out. If not, or if this is excessively "discussion oriented", please kindly point me to an appropriate resource to find help before closing this question.
Notes:
How would you design & implement a Cross Platform synchronization mechanism? Talks about hand rolling solutions. If this is the only way to go, I would appreciate references specifically applicable to SQLite3 since I know that it is stable and available on just about everything but the kitchen sink.
Cross platform data synchronization Does not really address anything significant. One of the main concerns I have is effectively synchronizing data while minimizing network bandwidth requirements. Even in the US, there are vast areas where high speed data is simply not available. To me, usability in the widest range of circumstances is important.
How to Synchronize Android Database with an online SQL Server? This post is somewhat helpful but I am a total, absolute novice at developing for anything but *NIX on servers and workstations. Again, if it is necessary to do SQL based persistence for this set of requirements, more pointers to guidance would be helpful.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
We're currently looking at using the Force.com platform as our development platform and the sales guys and the force.com website are full of reasons why it's the best platform in the world. What I'm looking for, though, is some real disadvantages to using such a platform.
Here are 10 to get you started.
Apex is a proprietary language. Other than the force.com Eclipse plugin, there's little to no tooling available such as refactoring, code analysis, etc.
Apex was modeled on Java 5, which is considered to be lagging behind other languages, and without tooling (see #1), can be quite cumbersome.
Deployment is still fairly manual with lots of gotchas and manual steps. This situation is slowly improving over time, but you'll be disappointed if you're used to having automated deployments.
Apex lacks packages/namespaces. All of your classes, interfaces, etc. live in one folder on the server. This makes code much less organized and class/interface names necessarily long to avoid name clashes and to provide context. This is one of my biggest complaints, and I would not freely choose to build on force.com for this reason alone.
The "force.com IDE", aka force.com eclipse plugin, is incredibly slow. Saving any file, whether it be a class file, text file, etc., usually takes at least 5 seconds and sometimes up to 30 seconds depending on how many objects, data types, class files, etc. are in your org. Saving is also a blocking action, requiring not only compilation, but a full sync of your local project with the server. Orders of magnitude slower than Java or .NET.
The online developer community does not seem very healthy. I've noticed lots of forum posts go unanswered or unsolved. I think this may have something to do with the forum software salesforce.com uses, which seems to suck pretty hard.
The data access DSL in Apex leaves a lot to be desired. It's not even remotely competitive with the likes of (N)Hibernate, JPA, etc.
Developing an app on Apex/VisualForce is an exercise in governor limits engineering. Easily half of programmer time is spent trying to optimize to avoid the numerous governor limits and other gotchas like visualforce view state limits. It could be argued that if you write efficient code to begin with you won't have this problem, which is true to an extent. However there are many times that you have valid reasons to make more than x queries in a session, or loop through more than x records, etc.
The save->compile->run cycle is extremely slow, esp. when it involves zipping and uploading the entire static resource bundle just to do something like test a minor CSS or javascript change.
In general, the pain of a young, fledgling platform without the benefits of it being open source. You have no way to validate and/or fix bugs in the platform. They say to post it to their IdeaExchange. Yeah, good luck with that.
Disclaimers/Disclosures: There are lots of benefits to a hosted platform such as force.com. Force.com does regularly enhance the platform. There are plenty of things about it I like. I make money building on force.com
I see you've gotten some answers, but I would like to reiterate how much time is wasted getting around the various governor limits on the platform. As much as I like the platform on certain levels, I would very strongly, highly, emphatically recommend against it as a general application development platform. It's great as a super configurable and extensible CRM application if that's what you want. While their marketing is exceptional at pushing the idea of Force.com as a general development platform, it's not even remotely close yet.
The efficiency of having a stable platform and avoiding big performance and stability problems is easily wasted in trying to code around the limits that people refer to. There are so many limits to the platform, it becomes completely maddening. These limits are not high-end limits you'll hit once you have a lot of users, you'll hit them almost right away.
While there are usually techniques to get around them, it's very hard to figure out strategies for avoiding them while you're also trying to develop the business logic of your actual application.
To give you a simple sense of how developer un-friendly the environment is, take the "lack of debugging environment" referred to above. It's worse than that. You can only see up to 20 of the most recent requests to the server in the debug logs. So, as you're developing inside the application you have to create a "New" debug request, select your name, hit "Save", switch back to your app, refresh the page, click back to your debug tab, try to find the request that will house your debug log, hit "find" to search for the text you're looking for. It's like ten clicks to look at a debug output. While it may seem trivial, it's just an example of how little care and consideration has been given to the developer's experience.
Everything about the development platform is a grafted-on afterthought. It's remarkable for what it is, but a total PITA for the most part. If you don't know exactly what you are doing (as in you're certified and have a very intimate understanding of Apex), it will easily take you upwards of 10-20x the amount of time that it would in another environment to do something that seems like it would be ridiculously simple, if you can even succeed at all.
The governor limits are indeed that bad. You have a combination of various limits (database queries, rows returned, "script statements", future calls, callouts, etc.) and you have to know exactly what you are doing to avoid these. For example, if you have a calculated rollup "formula" field on an object and you have a trigger on a child object, it will execute the parent object triggers and count those against your limits. Things like that aren't obvious until you've gone through the painful process of trying and failing.
You'll try one thing to avoid one limit, and hit another in a never ending game of "whack a limit". In the process you'll have to drastically re-architect your entire app and approach, as well as rewrite all of your test code. You must have 75% test code coverage to deploy into production, which is actually very good thing, but combined with all of the other limits, it's very burdensome. You'll actually hit governor limits writing your test code that wouldn't come up in normal user scenarios, but that will prevent you from achieving the coverage.
That is not to mention a whole host of other issues. Packaging isn't what you expect. You can't package up your app and deliver it to users without significant user intervention and configuration on the part of the administrator of the org. The AppExchange is a total joke, and they've even started charging 5K just to get your app listed. Importing with the data loader sucks, especially if you have any triggers. You can't export all of your data in one step that includes your relationships in such a way that it can easily be re-imported into another org in a single step (for example a dev org). You can only refresh a sandbox once a month from production, no exceptions, and you can't include your data in a refresh by default unless you have called your account executive to get that feature unlocked. You can't mass delete data in custom objects. You can't change your package names. Certain things can take numerous days to complete after you have requested them, such as a data backup before you want to deploy an app, with no progress report along the way and not much sense of when exactly the export occurred. Given that there are synchronicity issues of data if there are relationships between the data, there are serious data integrity issues in that there is no such thing as a "transaction" that can export numerous objects in a single step. There are probably some commercial tools to facilitate some of this, but these are not within reach to normal developers who may not have a huge budget.
Everything else the other people said here is true. It can take anywhere from five seconds to a minute sometimes to save a file.
I don't mean to be so negative because the platform is very cool in some ways and they're trying to do things in a multi-tenant environment that no one else is doing. It's a very innovative environment and powerful on some levels (I actually like VisualForce a lot), but give it another year or two. They're partnering with VMware, maybe that will lead to giving developers a bit more of a playpen rather than a jail cell to work in.
Here are a few things I can give you after spending a fair bit of time developing on the platform in the last fortnight or so:
There's no RESTful API. They have a soap based API that you can call, but there is no way of making true restful calls
There's no simple way to take their SObjects and convert them to JSON objects.
The visual force pages are ok until you want to customize them and then it's a whole world of pain.
Visual force pages need to be bound to SObjects otherwise there's no way to get the standard input fields like the datepicker or select list to work.
The eclipse plugin is ok if you want to work by yourself, but if you want to work in a large team with the eclipse plugin forget it. It doesn't handle synchronizing to and from the server, it crashes and it isn't really helpful at all.
THERE IS NO DEBUGGER! If you want to debug, it's literally debugged by system.debug statements. This is probably the biggest problem I've found
Their "MVC" model isn't really MVC. It's a lot closer to ASP.NET Webforms. Your views are tightly coupled to not only the models but the controllers as well.
Storing a large number of documents is not feasible. We need to store over 100gb's of documents and we were quoted some ridiculous figure. We've decided to implement our document storage on amazons S3 infrastructure
Even tho the language is java based, it's not java. You can't import any external packages or libraries. Also, the base libraries that are available are severely limited so we've found ourselves implementing a bunch of stuff externally and then exposing those bits as services that are called by force.com
You can call external SOAP or REST based services but the message body is limited to 100kb's so it's very restrictive in what you can call.
In all honesty, whilst there are potential benefits to developing on something like the force.com platform, for me, you couldn't use the force.com platform for true enterprise level apps. At best you could write some basic crud style applications but once you move into anything remotely complicated I'd be avoiding it like the plague.
Wow- there's a lot here that I didn't even know were limitations - after working on the platform for a few years.
But just to add some other things...
The reason you don't have a line-by-line debugger is precisely because it's a multi-tenant platform. At least that's what SFDC says - it seems like in this age of thread-rich programming, that isn't much of an excuse, but that's apparently the reason. If you have to write code, you have "System.debug(String)" as your debugger - I remember having more sophisticated server debugging tools in Java 1.2 about 12 years ago.
Another thing I really hate about the system is version control. The Spring framework is not used for what Spring is usually used for - it's really more off a configuration tool in SFDC rather than version control. SFDC provides ZERO version-control.
You can find yourself stuck for days doing something that should seem so ridiculously easy, like, say, scheduling a SFDC report to export to a CSV file and email to a list of recipients... Well, about the easiest way to do that is create a custom object with a custom field, with a workflow rule and a Visualforce email template... and then for code you need to write a Visualforce component that streams the report data to the Visualforce email template as an attachment and you write anonymous APEX code schedule field-update of the custom object... For SFDC developers, this is almost a daily task... trying to put about five different technologies together to do tasks that seem so simple.... And this can cause management headaches and tensions too - Typically, you'd find this out after getting a suggestion to do something that doesn't work in the user-community (like someone already said), and then trying many things that, after you developed them you'd find they just don't work for some odd-ball reason - like "you can't schedule a VisualForce page", or "you can't call getContent from a schedulable context" or some other arcane reason.
There are so many, many maddening little gotcha's on the SFDC platform, that once you know WHY they're there, it makes sense... but they're still very bad limitations that keep you from doing what you need to do. Here's some of mine;
You can't get record owner information "out of the box" on pretty much any kind of record - you have to write a trigger that links the owner on create of the record to the record you're inserting. Why? Short answer because an owner can be either a "person" or a "queue", and the two are drastically different entities... Makes sense, but it can turn a project literally upside down.
Maddening security model. Example: "Manage Public Reports" permission is vastly different from "Create and Customize Reports" and that basically goes for everything on the platform... especially folders of any kind.
As mentioned, support is basically non-existent. If you are an extremely self-sufficient individual, or have a lot of SFDC resources, or have a lot of time and/or a very forgiving manager, or are in charge of a SFDC system that's working fine, you're in pretty good shape. If you are not in any of these positions, you can find yourself in deep trouble.
SFDC is a very seductive business proposition... no equipment footprint, pretty good security, fixed price, no infrastructure, AND you get web-based CRM with batchable, and schedualble processing... But as the other posters said, it is really quite a ramp-up in development learning, and if you go with consulting, I think the lowest price I've seen was $200/hour.
Salesforce tends integrate with other things years after some technologies become common-place - JSON and jquery come to mind... and if you have other common infrastructures that you want to do an integration with, like JIRA, expect to pay a lot extra, and they can be quite buggy.
And as one of the other posters mentioned, you are constantly fighting governor limits that can just drive you nuts... an attachment can NOT be > 5MB. Period. And sometimes < 3MB (if base64 encoded). Ten HTTP callouts in a class. Period. There are dozens of published governor limits, and many that are not which you will undoubtedly find and just want to run out of your office screaming.
I really, REALLY like the platform, but trust me - it can be one really cruel mistress.
But in fairness to SFDC, I'd say this: the biggest problem I find with the platform is not the platform itself, but the gargantuan expectations that almost anyone who sees the platform, but hasn't developed on it has.... and those people tend to be in positions of great authority in business organizations; marketing, sales, management, etc. Huge disconnects occur and heads roll, or are threatened to roll daily - all because there's this great platform out there with weird gotchas and thousands of people struggling daily to get their heads around why things should just work when they just don't and won't.
EDIT:
Just to add to lomaxx's comments about the MVC; In SFDC terminology, this is closely related to what's known as the "viewstate" -- aand it can be really buggy, in that what is on the VF page is not what is in the controller-class for the page. So, you have to go throught weird gyrations to synch whats on the page with what the controller is going to write to SF when you click your "save" button (or make your HTTP callout or whatever).... man, it's annoying.
I think other people have covered the disadvantages in more depth but to me, it doesn't seem to use the MVC paradigm or support much in the way of code reuse at all. To do anything beyond simple applications is an exercise in frustration compared to developing an application using something like ASP.Net MVC.
Furthermore, the tools, the data layer and the frustration of trying to refactor code or rename fields during the development process doesn't help.
I think as a CMS it's pretty cool but as a platform for non CMS applications, it's doesn't make sense to me.
The security model is also very very restrictive... but this isn't the worst part. You can't currently assert whether a user has the ability to perform a particular action.
You can check to see what their role is, but you can't check if that role has permissions to perform the current action.
Even worse is the response from tech support to "try the action and if there's an exception, catch it"
Considering Force.com is a "cloud" platform, its ability to act as a client to an external WSDL-defined service is pretty underwhelming. See http://force201.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/when-generate-from-wsdl-fails-hand-coding-web-service-calls/ for what you might end up having to do.
To all above, I am curious how the release of VMforce, allowing Java programmer to write code for Force.com, changes the disadvantages above?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/saas/vmforcecom-redefines-the-paas-landscape/1071
I guess they are trying to address these issues. At dreamforce they mentioned they we're trying to drop the Governor limits to only 4. I'm not sure what the details are. They have a REST API for early access, and they bought heroku which is a ruby development in the cloud. They split out the database, with database.com so you can do all your web development on and your db calls using database.com.
I guess they are trying to make it as agnostic as possible. But right about now these are all announcements and early access so like their Safe Harbor statements don't purchase on what they say, only on what they currently have.
I know this is not a programming question per se, but I wanted to get as much input from the SO community on a new project I hope to get started. The project is from being started from scratch and thus every decision for programming languages, databases, frameworks, platforms and what not are up in the air. I'm hoping to get your opinion on the matter, what you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of each option.
Database:
Currently I have the option of using MSSQL or MySQL. While I am leaning towards using MySQL because it is free and most probably has all the features I need. However, there is the possibility of having a lot of hierarchical data and the new hierarchical data type in MSSQL is quite appealing. Does it really simplify matters that much? Also MSSQL supports many more advanced SQL functions that may or may not be useful in the long run. While for development I can get access to Server 2008, multiple licenses as the development team grows and for production, are the costs justified?
Programming Languages:
The project will have a web based front end UI and a server based component that will do some heavy lifting.
For the web based UI, I was thinking of maybe doing Apache/IIS with PHP or IIS with ASP.Net in C#. I'd like to use a good framework to properly utilize good design patterns that should structure the code and development of the app. As well as make modifications in the long run easy to implement. I also want the GUI to look good and don't like the idea of buying .Net controls from component vendors. Instead I prefer the idea of using good CSS, and open sources like YUI and javascript to make the UI sleek.
For the server based component, I was thinking of using C#. I have no real development experience in C++ and I'd like good libraries and sufficient speed is good enough. However, while the web based UI and server based component is loosely coupled, there may be instances where the UI needs to communicate (call methods and what not) with the server based component and I want to pick languages/frameworks that will play nice with each other.
All suggestions on frameworks to incorporate are welcome.
Version Control:
I have had good experiences with SVN and a pretty bad experiences with TFS. I've never worked with GIT. Which do you think is better in terms of features as well as general developer familiarity. I want to pick something that other developers will know and not have trouble with.
I apologize if the questions are bit redundant or I'm not providing enough information or using bad terminology. I plan to edit and improve the question as I get feedback. Thanks!
EDIT:
Who: This would most probably be a startup formed of college students or junior developers. I want the project to utilize technologies that most people are familiar with or are easy to pick up.
What: I'd need hours and days to explain the solution. But in the end when you break it down, its a web based UI (think standard web app to just manage database data) that would be used to knowledgeable clients. The server based component would be very separate except for the fact that it should be able to communicate with the web app.
I can provide more information as required but I would appreciate an opportunity for users to answer and provide their ideas before you hastily close the question.
Obviously it depends a lot on specific requirements, but then again, even with those I probably wouldn't be able to tell for sure!
I've been working on a from-scratch project myself for a couple of months, and have generally found:
Choosing Microsoft for all the layers just goes down much easier (my subjective opinion). For example I would use C# for the UI, the back end, and use MSSQL for the database. Nothing at all wrong with non-Microsoft vendors, I'm no Microsoft fan-boy, I just struggle to get productive with unfamiliar tools. Depends where your experience lies though.
Database: In particular I've found that .NET and MSSQL go easily together. When I started the project I was using a PostgreSQL (because it's free, fully featured and has open-source warm fuzzies). However I abandoned it in favour of MSSQL simply because it was taking me too long to get database work done in an unfamiliar language with unfamiliar tools. Also, I'm not sure MSSQL is so expensive anymore, for example for a web application, MSSQL 2008 Web Edition is pretty damn cheap per-processor I think (only on SPLA licensing though). If you're concerned about database features in a free implementation though, personally I think PostgreSQL has a very full feature set, nicely standardised, and rapidly growing.
UI: I'm pretty inexperienced, but ASP.NET MVC looks far less painful to me than ASP.NET Web Forms. I like PHP too, but again I'd match the UI language with the back-end language, so would recommend .NET.
On frameworks, I'm immersed in DALs at the moment. I like Subsonic for lightweight data, NHibernate for heavy-weight.
I still have a long way to go with my project so perhaps I can only see the short-term benefits and drawbacks at the moment. But in general I would say: use the technologies that you're most comfortable using, as you'll be way more productive and the end result will probably be about the same anyway. If you want to learn new technologies though, and who doesn't? - go ahead, just expect it to take a lot longer.
Didn't want to answer 'cause it's so open ended. But a few points:
Money
First, check out BizSpark. That should take care of any money aspect for 3 years. For a service company, that means not only free VS Team Suite and Office and so on, but free Windows, SQL, etc. If your startup can't afford to spend a bit on MS tech in 3 years, it's probably a bad business. So that takes out licensing.
On a similar note, Sun has Startup Essentials. Could be interesting on the hardware side of things, but I haven't actually competitively priced them versus Dell/HP.
Software
It doesn't sound like you have hard enough requirements to say "oh, this slightly-less-popular software X is perfect for my domain Y and is gonna give me a very big boost". In fact, your project might not be like that at all. Maybe it, technically, is going to be a relatively plain application just pushing data around or whatever. You didn't specify.
For a small startup, personal productivity is probably going to trump any other argument. If your people are excellent in X, then that's one of your top arguments right there.
If you really don't have any particular system you're most comfortable with, be conservative. Stick with .NET or Java, as they'll give you the widest range of useful possibilities.
As far as things like OS and Database, I'm biased, but I think Microsoft will give you platforms that are easier to take advantage of than you'll find elsewhere. For instance, setting up load balancing, clustering, centralized authentication, managing servers (updates, events, etc.) is going to be easier to get going on Windows than it would be on another platform, assuming you're not an expert in either. Configuring SQL Server, even the advanced features, is a piece of cake. (Go time someone who knows neither: Setup a DB mirror in MSSQL and MySQL -- which is going to take more work?) Again, this is all predicated on you not having experts in a particular set of technology.
Don't mix -- whatever you do, stick with the platform. If you go .NET, MSSQL is going to work better with the data providers (or things like Linq-to-SQL). If you decide to do PHP, then use MySQL as everyone else uses it and you'll encounter less resistance. If you're not inventing stuff on the technical side, don't become an edge case.
You should pick the platform first, then the language that is best for that platform (if there is any choice).
One thing you should consider is the labor pool, and labor pool cost, for specific platforms and languages. Human Resources can often get cost metrics, if you don't have ideas already.
In my town, for example, .NET platform is much more expensive per Software Engineer than open source, because the .NET developers have a higher rate (40% roughly). C# is a little higher rate than VB.NET, but also tends to bring more well rounded candidates.
Just to throw in something totally different: How about weblocks as a web framework? It uses Hunchentoot as a server, which can run either standalone or with Apache. This is all done in Common Lisp. Weblocks can use cl-sql as a backend store, which can connect to many different RDBMs (MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, ODBC, SQLite).
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.