Talk:FilePro

Untitled
Sorry, Ken; I didn't see that you'd put the trademark notice in. Tradenames are by policy assumed to be trademarks, just as with other encyclopediae. --Baylink 22:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Major Cleanup needed
I came across this article from fPTech, which I think needs to be merged into here (as it contains next to no information at all). In that process, I've noticed that this page is in major need of cleanup (there's talk content in the actual article, for instance) – but don't worry, the Cleanup Taskforce is on the case! :) –Dvandersluis 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes regarding current format
The article has "evolved" into a talk format. It was originally a simple "what is filePro?" page. At some point, an apparently-disgruntled developer added some rather heated opinions on the program, much of which was no longer relevent to the current version. I did a bit of editing, perhaps overzealously, to correct it. This went back and forth a couple of times, at which point I decided to leave the other person's posts as-is, and added "correction" sections, rather than simply remove the inaccurate and/or (in my opinion) inflamatory information.

I agree that a major rework is appropriate, to break it into logical sections, and simply eliminate inaccurate information. Might I suggest, as a start:
 * What is filePro?
 * filePro features
 * Pros/Cons
 * filePro history
 * Company history

I have no problem with this article being merged with fPTech, though is it possible to point fPTech to a specific section within filePro's article?

–Kenbrody 23:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirects that specify a particular section do not work (though if you go back to the redirect and then click the link it will take you to the correct section. I believe this is a known limitation but I do nopt know if it is activley being addressed.) RJFJR 03:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Anderson says: My sole contribution has been to attempt to include some verifiable things. The inital disgruntled developer wasn't even me. Personally, I think I have reason to be disgruntled, but that's not germaine to this particular discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.117.57 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Material removed from article
This is some give and take, and some comments, which I removed during trying to improve the enclopedianess of the article:

The above history may be correct; however, let me give you an old timer's opinion after he has seen the world of creating legacy system bridges. filePro as I am told by reliable sources, was Profile. The original creaters separated and one created filePro after being told not to use Profile. He took the Pro and moved it after file creating filePro. Who cares now!


 * Correction: filePro was originally marketed by Tandy/Radio Shack under the name "Profile", which was a trademark licensed by Tandy/Radio Shack. When The small Computer Company decided to market the product on non-Tandy computers as well, they couldn't use the trademarked "Profile" name, and so coined the name "filePro".

Sorry to linger... But Scott was wrong in deleting the prior contributions. I do not want to speculate why or what his motive was, but I found the statements of the deleted material to be very accurate. And Scott's statement that, "web technologies provide for an unlimited graphical interface, including drag and drop" confused me a little. How do the W3 contributions toward defining protocols provide unlimited graphical interfaces? Actually, most developers today would argue that the standards limit their artistic ability and do not provide unlimited interfacing. Ask Netscape or Firefox, they might have a story or two to tell on wed technology standards. I relate the reference to web technologies, as the 7th layer of the ISO 7-Layer model or the 4th layer of the TCP/IP model. I need to verify, but I think this puts us at the browser and the browser's scripting functions (JavaScript), therefore the drag and drop features are provided by applications, not WEB technologies.

I will understand if this addition is deleted or even revised. I do feel strongly that Wikipedia should insure accurate information related to topic. Deletion of information with intent of insuring positive reception of a current marketable product is inexcusable. It is advertising! So I leave you with this, is this site for advertisement or the exchange of knowledge.

1979 the same year that The small Computer Company became a corporation.

Should "history" section be added?
Would it be appropriate to add a "history" or "timeline" section to the entry? I could add numerous entries, but I am not certain of the exact year for some things.

–Kenbrody 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have the information, I'd say why not? :) –Dvandersluis 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article
The indented section was commented out for a while and is now moved here. The preceding line is what it seems to answer. This matieral has been summarized and added in one paragraph.

...Code is stored on a per-table basis, and follows a complex set of execution rules which few users fully exploit.


 * Actually, the basic set of execution rules are pretty simple. Most things are event triggers.  For example, upon entering update mode, an @UPDATE event is triggered, or when leaving a field, an @WLF event is triggered.  There are approximately 20 different types of events, and there are default actions for any events not explicitly supplied.

Cleanup done
I've done cleanup work and closed the Cleanup Taskforce project for this article. Please let me know if you feel it should be reopened. RJFJR 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I'm not sure it is necessary to merge fPTech here. Although that article is a stub instead of maiking it a redirect to here just leave it as is and have a link there. On the other hand, I've left the merge tags until discuss is finished. RJFJR 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I once again suggest a merge, as the FPTech contains next to zero information (if not for the merge, I'd nominate it for AfD). –Dvandersluis 04:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge: Clearly, FPTech needs to be no more than a redirect. --Baylink 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Current status
The first paragraph sounds like marketing talk and needs a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:BF10:9400:E553:DEE7:CDD3:4604 (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)