[FX.php List] Setup Question

[Kevin Futter]

On 5/5/06 4:51 PM, "Andrew Denman" <adenman at tmea.org> wrote:

> As for my company, the scenario 3 suggested by Greg has worked well.  Our
> dynamic pages generate far fewer hits than our static website, so our local
> connection/hardware investment has been acceptable.  The only problem I have
> with it is the two domain name setup and the (slight so far) increase in
> site management it creates.  Using scenario 3 allows us to offer dynamic web
> content while keeping the FileMaker databases readily accessible to clients
> on our local network.  It's a good compromise between cost and functionality
> on the web for us.
> 
> If you have the resources though, I would definitely go with everything on
> one site (scenario 2).  I personally would not recommend scenario 1 for
> anything but the least visited sites, and in that case there is probably a
> better solution.

I too originally developed an in-house FileMaker website that had to
interface with a pre-existing external website. We managed for a while by
opening specific ports (589 mostly) on our firewall, calling the internal FM
site via our external IP (we didn't feel that another domain name was worth
it) and using URL rewrites to direct the traffic to the appropriate internal
server.

Eventually we moved the whole thing to an internal set up, and haven't
looked back. This also allowed us to move to FX and abandon CDML, and a host
of other advantages. The main disadvantage is that our outbound pipe is a
little slow, but it's acceptable.

-- 
Kevin Futter
Webmaster, St. Bernard's College
http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/