Remote Link to Remote Link, i.e. double dereference, i.e. pointer to pointer, i.e. reference to reference.
Ok, it looks more complicated than it is. Three GEDCOMs on same server. Each GEDCOM is actually a separate surname, and represent three generations. I use an abbreviation of “gA” for GEDCOM A, “gB” for GEDCOM B, and “gC” for GEDCOM C.
You have a child in gA, call him gA:I2, his mother is in gB, call her gB:I1, and his grandmother is in gC, caller her gC:I1. If you look at any of the charts for gA:I2, it shows his grandmother as (unknown)(unknown). Is there something I can do to fix this?
Here’s a little more detail.
GEDCOM “A”
I1 – FAMS=F1, (father of I2)
I2 – FAMC=F1 (child of gB:I1, grandchild of gC:I1)
F1 – HUSB=I1, Wife=S1:I1, Child:I1
S1 = “GEDCOM B”
GEDCOM “B”
I1 – FAMS=S1:F1, FAMC=F1 (wife of gA:I1, mother of gC:I2, child of I2)
I2 – FAMS=F1 (father of I1)
F1 – HUSB=I2, wife=S2:I1, Child:I1
S1 = “GEDCOM A”
S2 = “GEDCOM C”
GEDCOM “C”
I1 – FAMS=S1:F1 (mother of gB:I1, wife of gB:I1, grandmother of gA:I1)
S1 = “GEDCOM B”
Thanks,
Mike
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Mike
A little help please? Version of PGV? Prior to 4.2 release, there are many issues with remote link that will not be fixed. There are still some aggravating little display bugs in the currrent SVN, but overall it works.
To link, you must link SAME PERSON-GED-A to SAME PERSON-GED-B. No child to parent, spouse to spouse, etc. You must add the person to use as the 'bridge linking INDI-ID#" to each of the Gedcoms, then remote link SAME to SAME.
Hope this helps, but this is the only way it will work, and then only if you are using the latest release.
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
In my example, I have the gB:I1 FAMS pointing to "S1:F1" - do I understand you correctly, that will cause problems?
I tried the trick described on the PGVwiki where you have a local stub reference for the remote person. The only problem there is that it seems to require a local family record, which then seemed to cause other problems (besides having to keep track of duplicate records on two different GEDCOMs).
Thanks,
Mike
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2009-02-23
Mike
I use remote linking myself, so let me first update you (and stephen) that the need for' same to same' linking is no longer valid in PGV 4.2.
It was a feature removed in most versions up to 4.1.6, but has since been 'fixed' so you can now create links as wife, husband, mother, father etc.
However, Stephen is right in saying that "there are many issues with remote link ". Probably the most important, and I suspect it may be causing your issue, is that linking only works in one direction. So I can add a wife to my record in gedcom A as a link to gedcom B (my wife's family tree). So in my tree , if Ilook at, for example, the 'Family page" I see both my parents plus my wife's - and I can navigate firther down her tree.
BUT, if I go to her tree, in gedcom B, there will still be no marriage to me shown, nor any of my family.
I've tried creating such a "reverse link" and it just causes a mess, with a sort of circular confusion.
For any remote linking there are also some charts (most notably the Relationship chart) that just don't work.
All in all, unless you have really large family trees (each well above 10,000 people), and only minimal links between them (my preference is just one), then I have to strongly recommend AGAINST using remote linking.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
While technically Kiwi is correct, that in v4.2+ the linking works beyond identical INDI >< INDI, if you choose to use remote linking (even if hosted on the same server), I recommend the same-same setup as least confusing.
And it is only one way, with inherent problems trying to reverse the linkage.
Frankly, I'm not sure why, with what appear to be relatively small GEDCOMs all under your control as genemaster, you would choose to keep them separate. There are plenty of ways to protect privacy within the trees and with v4.2 there are few reasons for performance hits to be the driving factor.
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks guys for your answers. It looks like remote linking is not quite ready for prime-time. Its ok though, it seems to be doing everything else extremely well, and I am very very impressed with it.
I appreciate the usage advice. I was looking for just that sort of advice on the twiki, or FAQ, regarding a detailed "best practices" for using phpGedView. On the surface it seemed that having GEDCOM's by surname allowed the most administrative flexibility, and I could easily point several different family members at "their" tree for work, and with remote linking connect everthing together.
My wife and I were fascinated with the idea of a giant, interconnected web of family trees on the internet, I am sure its been thought about a thousand times. It seems like phpGedView would be perfect for that once the remote linking is sorted out and robust.
I combined everything into one big tree and it all seems to be fine now.
Thanks again,
Mike
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2009-02-23
<<It seems like PhpGedView would be perfect for that once the remote linking is sorted out and robust. >>
I wouldn't hold you breath on that one. There is no-one in the core development team that uses it anymore, so not likely to get much attention other than fixing actual bugs. Improvements are unlikely.
I was a keen supporter of the concept, but am now looking at going the other way. As Stephen says, one of the key benefits 'was' keeping GEDCOMs down to manageable sizes, but recent improvements have made that unnecessary. I think we're at the point now where the shortcomings no longer out-weigh any benefits.
<<I could easily point several different family members at "their" tree for work>> - there is a much easier way to accomplish that. Make sure each family member is linked (on their user profile) to their own record; then assist them to develop a meaningful personal "my portal" page. Include some favourites on it (their ancestors), and possibly the charts block, displaying their immediate tree. It gives them a great stepping-off place for their own part of the family.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Remote Link to Remote Link, i.e. double dereference, i.e. pointer to pointer, i.e. reference to reference.
Ok, it looks more complicated than it is. Three GEDCOMs on same server. Each GEDCOM is actually a separate surname, and represent three generations. I use an abbreviation of “gA” for GEDCOM A, “gB” for GEDCOM B, and “gC” for GEDCOM C.
You have a child in gA, call him gA:I2, his mother is in gB, call her gB:I1, and his grandmother is in gC, caller her gC:I1. If you look at any of the charts for gA:I2, it shows his grandmother as (unknown)(unknown). Is there something I can do to fix this?
Here’s a little more detail.
GEDCOM “A”
I1 – FAMS=F1, (father of I2)
I2 – FAMC=F1 (child of gB:I1, grandchild of gC:I1)
F1 – HUSB=I1, Wife=S1:I1, Child:I1
S1 = “GEDCOM B”
GEDCOM “B”
I1 – FAMS=S1:F1, FAMC=F1 (wife of gA:I1, mother of gC:I2, child of I2)
I2 – FAMS=F1 (father of I1)
F1 – HUSB=I2, wife=S2:I1, Child:I1
S1 = “GEDCOM A”
S2 = “GEDCOM C”
GEDCOM “C”
I1 – FAMS=S1:F1 (mother of gB:I1, wife of gB:I1, grandmother of gA:I1)
S1 = “GEDCOM B”
Thanks,
Mike
Mike
A little help please? Version of PGV? Prior to 4.2 release, there are many issues with remote link that will not be fixed. There are still some aggravating little display bugs in the currrent SVN, but overall it works.
To link, you must link SAME PERSON-GED-A to SAME PERSON-GED-B. No child to parent, spouse to spouse, etc. You must add the person to use as the 'bridge linking INDI-ID#" to each of the Gedcoms, then remote link SAME to SAME.
Hope this helps, but this is the only way it will work, and then only if you are using the latest release.
-Stephen
Thanks Stephen, I am using PhpGedView 4.2.0.
In my example, I have the gB:I1 FAMS pointing to "S1:F1" - do I understand you correctly, that will cause problems?
I tried the trick described on the PGVwiki where you have a local stub reference for the remote person. The only problem there is that it seems to require a local family record, which then seemed to cause other problems (besides having to keep track of duplicate records on two different GEDCOMs).
Thanks,
Mike
Mike
I use remote linking myself, so let me first update you (and stephen) that the need for' same to same' linking is no longer valid in PGV 4.2.
It was a feature removed in most versions up to 4.1.6, but has since been 'fixed' so you can now create links as wife, husband, mother, father etc.
However, Stephen is right in saying that "there are many issues with remote link ". Probably the most important, and I suspect it may be causing your issue, is that linking only works in one direction. So I can add a wife to my record in gedcom A as a link to gedcom B (my wife's family tree). So in my tree , if Ilook at, for example, the 'Family page" I see both my parents plus my wife's - and I can navigate firther down her tree.
BUT, if I go to her tree, in gedcom B, there will still be no marriage to me shown, nor any of my family.
I've tried creating such a "reverse link" and it just causes a mess, with a sort of circular confusion.
For any remote linking there are also some charts (most notably the Relationship chart) that just don't work.
All in all, unless you have really large family trees (each well above 10,000 people), and only minimal links between them (my preference is just one), then I have to strongly recommend AGAINST using remote linking.
While technically Kiwi is correct, that in v4.2+ the linking works beyond identical INDI >< INDI, if you choose to use remote linking (even if hosted on the same server), I recommend the same-same setup as least confusing.
And it is only one way, with inherent problems trying to reverse the linkage.
Frankly, I'm not sure why, with what appear to be relatively small GEDCOMs all under your control as genemaster, you would choose to keep them separate. There are plenty of ways to protect privacy within the trees and with v4.2 there are few reasons for performance hits to be the driving factor.
-Stephen
Thanks guys for your answers. It looks like remote linking is not quite ready for prime-time. Its ok though, it seems to be doing everything else extremely well, and I am very very impressed with it.
I appreciate the usage advice. I was looking for just that sort of advice on the twiki, or FAQ, regarding a detailed "best practices" for using phpGedView. On the surface it seemed that having GEDCOM's by surname allowed the most administrative flexibility, and I could easily point several different family members at "their" tree for work, and with remote linking connect everthing together.
My wife and I were fascinated with the idea of a giant, interconnected web of family trees on the internet, I am sure its been thought about a thousand times. It seems like phpGedView would be perfect for that once the remote linking is sorted out and robust.
I combined everything into one big tree and it all seems to be fine now.
Thanks again,
Mike
<<It seems like PhpGedView would be perfect for that once the remote linking is sorted out and robust. >>
I wouldn't hold you breath on that one. There is no-one in the core development team that uses it anymore, so not likely to get much attention other than fixing actual bugs. Improvements are unlikely.
I was a keen supporter of the concept, but am now looking at going the other way. As Stephen says, one of the key benefits 'was' keeping GEDCOMs down to manageable sizes, but recent improvements have made that unnecessary. I think we're at the point now where the shortcomings no longer out-weigh any benefits.
<<I could easily point several different family members at "their" tree for work>> - there is a much easier way to accomplish that. Make sure each family member is linked (on their user profile) to their own record; then assist them to develop a meaningful personal "my portal" page. Include some favourites on it (their ancestors), and possibly the charts block, displaying their immediate tree. It gives them a great stepping-off place for their own part of the family.