I have to write a library that works with Couchbase 3.0.1 and 4.0. I know that to know if my code will works with each one, I will have to test them.
Anyway, what are the key differences between both versions?
If you are using the Java SDK, Couchbase server 4.0 is backwards compatible with the Java SDK 1.4.x. So using this version of the SDK should work across both Couchbase 3.0.x and 4.0.x servers, although you won't be able to use any of the cool new features with 4.0.x.
Other SDKs that were intended for Couchbase server 3.0.x should similarly be compatible with Couchbase server 4.0.x.
However, there could be some hidden "gotchas" when using an older SDK with the newer server version, although I have yet to encounter one myself.
As far as migrating from an older SDK intended for Couchbase server 3.0.x to a newer SDK intended for Couchbase server 4.0.x, this migration requires a significant effort for the Java SDK since they did a lot of refactoring. Although, I'm not certain if the same is true for SDKs in other languages.
Related
How to exclude the org.json version in MULE 3.9.0 buildpath?
The version is json-20140107 I want to use the latest json version. I tried to exclude in mule-commons but it did not do any help.
The json-20140107.jar library is distributed with Mule 3.9.0. Because of how Mule implements classloading, at execution time classes loaded from that jar file will override a newer version in your application. You must not change the version provided because Mule was tested. Changing any provided library in the distribution can cause unexpected errors.
You could pack a new version of the library and try to use Fine Grain Classloader Control however that seems to be an Enterprise Edition feature not available in the community edition. If you have the Enterprise Edition it is highly recommended to use the last patch version (currently 3.9.4) instead of 3.9.0.
Another solution could be to migrate to Mule 4.x, which uses classloading isolation to avoid this kind of issues. You can use any version of libraries inside applications without conflicting with the provided libraries in the runtime. Again, using the last version available is the recommended way to go. Mule 3 applications are not compatible with Mule 4, so you will need to migrate existing applications.
I want to connect mysql database using dart sqljocky package but it's not compatible. dart analysis show error.
Resolving dependencies...
The current Dart SDK version is 2.0.0.
Because dartAuth depends on sqljocky >=0.1.3 which requires SDK version <2.0.0, version solving failed.
Because dartAuth depends on sqljocky >=0.1.3 which requires SDK version <2.0.0, version solving failed.
According to the error, the installed version of the Dart SDK is too new for the sqljocky version required by dartAuth.
You'll either need to downgrade to a pre-2.0.0 version of the Dart SDK or upgrade to a dartAuth version that doesn't require an outdated version of sqljocky (which hasn't been updated in three years).
It's not clear from your post, but it looks to me like you must be using a very old version of dartAuth if it's depending on sqljocky, so moving to a newer version of the former and replacing the latter with something that's actively maintained seem to be reasonable first steps.
Symfony 2.8 requires PHP version to be at least 5.3.9, however nothing is mentioned regarding Apache and MySQL versions in the documentation. What are the minimal requirements for them?
Apache and MySQL version are not exactly relevant there: Apache acts merely as a caller to PHP (in the most common mod_php stack), so it does not interact directly with Symfony. Plus Apache release cycles tend to be longer (2.2 from 2005 is still around).
Regarding MySQL, it concerns Doctrine exactly, especially the DBAL - Database Abstraction Layer. Doctrine platforms documentation does not state much about it, we can infer it supports MySQL 5.0+.
Of course, the higher you can go is the better. PHP 5.3 is not supported anymore, nor PHP 5.4 or PHP 5.5 (security bugs supports stopped last week). Apache 2.2 you need the very last "patch" version. MySQL dramatically improved in 5.5+.
If nothing is mentionned in the documentation,then it means any version can be used most of the time.
I think you should simple use the latest version available in your distributions's repository.
I've read through a number of pages detailing the version differences between the different MySQL versions, but none of them have given me a real clear picture as to what is best for the application I am making. I'm in the process of building a CRM which will handle 20,000 customers at launch and built on a LAMP stack. The OS will either be CentOS or FreeBSD.
Right now for test purposes we've been using a MySQL 5.0 server for the database, but we are wondering which version we should use for production. If anyone could give some thoughts as to the pros and cons of using 5.0 vs 5.1 vs 5.5 vs 5.6 in the context of a CRM application, it would be most appreciated.
TL;DR 5.5
For a new software rollout, it makes sense to integrate and do final testing with the latest generally available (GA) release of your infrastructure components.
Right now that's 5.5.20 of the MySQL community server. 5.6.x is considered a development release. It probably doesn't make sense for you to try to do integration and final testing with such a release, unless it offers a new feature that's a critical success factor for your new software. (But then you should ask yourself whether it makes sense to make your product dependent on exotic new features in unfinished dbms releases.)
EDIT... #rkosegi has a good point. If you're going to deploy on an enterprise grade linux server distro like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (rhel) use the version it supports. 5.1 works fine.
I think better you should use v5.1.XX because it's in active development state and stable too.
MySQL has stopped working on v5.0 i guess extend support also will expire soon.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/
I remember using Configuration Application Block in Enterprise Library 1.0.
What is the equivalent of it in 4.0 or 4.1 version?
No, there's no equivalent. When .NET 2.0 Framework came out, the Configuration Application Block has been deprecated in favor of System.Configuration.
On a separate note, are there any configuration scenarios that you feel you need help with, similarly to what Configuration Application Block offerred?