We're upgrading from Semantic MediaWiki 1.9.2 to version 2.2 and will no longer use the Semantic Bundle.
So we no longer include SemanticBundleSettings.php and SemanticBundle.php in LocalSettings.php but use Composer and the vendor/autoload.php.
The Special:Version page shows the correct version and most things seem to work well but there are some issues.
For example when editing a template this message appears: "This page is not enabled for semantic in-text annotations due to namespace restrictions. Details about how to enable the namespace is described on the configuration help page".
(assuming this has something to do with upgrading)
My question: is there some roadmap to upgrade in a structured way rather then trial-and-error?
I've read Upgrade from SMW 1.9+ for MW 1.22+ and the release notes for SMW 2.0 but this does not give me enough information.
Related
We have developed our web app using polymer 0.5. We haven't upgraded it yet, there is a request for a new page creation. Question is, can we have that page alone created using polymer 2, whereas the rest of the app still runs in 0.5.
Also request to provide some pointers on login page custom element. It will be a simple user/password field.
Thanks,
Use information in this post https://jcrowther.io/2015/06/01/upgrading-from-polymer-v0-5-v1-0/ to migrate to 1.0 and then make minor changes to run on 1.9 and finaly you can use Polymer linter avaiable in https://github.com/Polymer/polymer-linter with --fix option in polymer-2-hybrid mode.
There is no way that 0.5 version elements will be complatible with 2.0. There have been few changes.
Upgrading to version 1.9.1 should be ok. Without any hard problems. So you should first try this and repair some errors that might occur. Then read documentation about upgrading to Polymer 2.0. You will be using hybrid elements. This is important, because in Polymer 2.0 there are 2 choices of how to define elements.
If you don't have that much time playing with upgrading, or is your app simply large, then upgrading to 1.9.1 should be the best option.
I am busy upgrading SMW 1.9.2 to version 2.2. How do I know which version to use of the accompanying extensions like Semantic Forms or Semantic Extra Special Properties?
As you can see at the SMW docs:
Various MediaWiki extensions are available for further extending
Semantic MediaWiki with additional functionality, and some basic
extensions of MediaWiki are generally useful for employing SMW.
Most extensions are not maintained by the SMW Project. Please see the
extension's main page and installation files to find out whom to
contact for support and where to report bugs. Questions related to
these extensions can be discussed on the mailing list or forum for the
extension (where specified), or on the Semantic MediaWiki user mailing
list.
So, in case that you don't find the relation between your SMW version and the version of each extension in the Semantic MediaWiki user mailing list or the forum for the extension, you should look at the official docs for every extension or contact the developers of each extension, as there is not official reference about the relation you're looking for.
I am trying to include HTML validity to our suite of tests (RSpec) with the w3c_validator gems. One problem is the lag between my machine and the W3C servers (the gem uses remote validation). Another problem is that I would like the HTML errors to be displayed as some kind of warning instead of spec failures.
What would be the proper way of achieving this?
Versions:
RSpec 2.7
Rails 3.0.4
Ruby 1.8.7
Ubuntu Linux (11.04)
One way: use v.Nu.
For example:
Install vnu.jar on your computer to reduce the lag.
Run vnu.jar as a standalone web service.
Write your own code (say, in Ruby) to use the v.Nu HTTP interface and display the errors as you like.
Depending on what you mean by "proper", which can include requirements that are specific to your needs and circumstances, v.Nu has a strong case for being the proper way to validate (X)HTML(5). For links to information that support this case, and an example use of the v.Nu HTTP interface, see linter-vnu.
Hey all,
I'm curious if you can use a jboss SAR to hold all the xml, class files, and even lib files that, if you were using tomcat, were traditionally in the /shared/classes, shared/lib locations into a SAR.
The intent is that instead of messing around in the jboss/conf/ directory to simply deploy an 'appconfig.sar' beside your actual app.war/app.ear.
Example usecase is Alfresco shared/classes/*..
thanks for any feedback!
I would say this depends on your JBoss version and the ClassLoadingConfiguration you're using. I can work, but then it can just as easily break in the next version of JBoss. JBoss 7 is very strict for example.
In general I would not rely on the specific behavior of a specific JBoss version and package my dependencies with my application. If you want to share dependencies between several .war then consider having then all in in an .ear and the dependencies in .ear/lib.
We develop web application and we are going to deploy it on JBoss.
Now we use JSF, Facelets, Webflow, JMX, Spring.
We are going to use JMS(ActiveMQ).
Maybe in the future we will use EJB3. But for near future we will not use it.
What configuration of JBoss would be better to use - web, standard, default?
And why?
Go for the smallest config that does what you need. The "web" configuration seems to have everything you need, including ejb3 support.
Remember, the configurations in the distribution are just examples. It's perfectly acceptable to create custom server configs by copying the deployers and libs around to produce a config that does exactly what you need.
I've never found the need to use anything other than default, sometimes removing some of the config. And that's included JMS, EJB, Spring, Webflow, etc.
I you are using JBoss AS 5.1.X, I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/JBoss-AS-Development-Marchioni-Francesco/dp/1847196829
On page 31 there is a detailed explanation about the five provided configurations.