I have always thought that DotCMIS supports both CMIS 1.0 and CMIS 1.1 repositories.
But now I am being told otherwise, that DotCMIS (by extension: CmisSync) does not support CMIS 1.0.
How is it actually?
Do recent versions of DotCMIS still support CMIS 1.0 repositories?
DotCMIS only supports CMIS 1.0 repositories. It might work with CMIS 1.1 repositories, but that's not a supported scenario.
Current dotCMIS versions support only CMIS 1.0
If you are interested in using dotCMIS with CMIS 1.1 you should follow the instructions on this link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-742
Its just a "partial patch" but better than nothing.
Hope it might help someone...
Related
I'm trying to upgrade from JSF 2.2 to 2.4 in Netbeans 11.0.
I downloaded the binaries and added it as a new library:
But when I look into the properties of my project, I still see the old JSF versions 1.2 and 2.2:
Is adding it as a Maven dependency the only way to upgrade? I wanted to upgrade it globally, for all (future) projects.
I'm using Java EE 8 with Payara Server 5.192.
JSF 2.4 does not exist as an official API at all. Do not use it. Currently latest official version is 2.3 and the next one will be 3.0 which will be released as part of Jakarta EE 9 (which is essentially exactly the same as 2.3, but then with the package renamed from javax.faces to jakarta.faces).
See also the blog article Do not use org.glassfish Mojarra 2.4.0! written by yours truly.
No, JSF 2.4 is not there yet. Technically speaking, Mojarra 2.4.0 represents the latest state of the master branch as it was during the transfer from Oracle to Eclipse. That transfer took place when JSF 2.3 specification was already released and JSF 2.4 specification has still to be started yet. JSF 2.4 is far from being a beta, let alone a reasonable snapshot. And yet there is a Mojarra 2.4.0 in Maven instead of e.g. a Mojarra 2.4.0-M1. As per the agreement between Oracle and Eclipse, it was necessary to release the latest work on Mojarra under Oracle's umbrella into Maven Central before the transfer to Eclipse was completed. And later Eclipse will do the same after the transfer is completed so that the integrity can be validated by the public. Using version "2.4.0" is indeed way too confusing for the public, because does actually not at all represent a real "2.4.0" version, but it is what it is.
As to your specific problem with Netbeans, you need to upgrade it to see "JSF 2.3" as an option in its built-in dropdown. Alternatively you can also just ignore it and write JSF 2.3 targeted code yourself instead of letting the IDE autogenerate it. That's basically what that "JSF 2.3" option is doing. Autogenerating the suitable JSF 2.3 faces-config.xml file and such. But you as a programmer of course can easily write code yourself based on official documentation.
According to groovy-eclipse plug-in website, groovy-eclipse plug-in supports certain groovy versions, 1.8, 2.0 and 2.1. This seemed a bit restrictive to me. What am I supposed to do if I work with groovy 1.9 or 1.7?
Perhaps the answer is that if you worked with Eclipse or GGTS before, then that couldn't happen; I suspect they never supported 1.9 or 1.7.
What is your concern? If you're worried that you might start off with 2.1 and have it not supported in future, then don't worry. If you're expecting to use some bizarre compiler feature that only worked in 1.9, then edit with the eclipse plugin for any version, and run Groovy (or Grails) from the command line with the right configuration.
Hope this helps...
Charles
Groovy-Eclipse supports the last couple of versions of groovy so we don't get into a maintenance headache. There is no Groovy 1.9 so we support right now 2.2/2.1/2.0/1.8 - we dropped 1.7. If you want to use 1.7 you would use an older version of groovy-eclipse that supported it. See version 2.8.0: http://groovy.codehaus.org/Groovy-Eclipse+2.8.0+New+and+Noteworthy - on that page you can download an update site archive that will give you groovy-eclipse and groovy 1.7.10
What is the official support status of older JSF releases like 1.1, 1.2, 2.0? Is there some end-of-life roadmap for JSF releases?
I was only able to find end-of-life roadmap for Java SE here http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html I couldn't find anything related to JEE specifications.
Being a specification, JSF doesn't have a end-of-life date. That's usually used to describe available (commercial) support, which is available for the products based on that spec.
The support offerings are quite numerous, so I'll just point out Jboss EAP and Oracle WebLogic.
If you're looking for an answer regarding JSF support by component toolkits, there's the Richfaces Support Matrix and I've seen that Primefaces-4 supports JSF-2.x up to the latest 2.2 release.
I want to unit test a repository for CMIS 1.0 compatibility.
If I use the latest CMIS Workbench, then the TCK button runs the unit tests for CMIS 1.1 (which fails, since the repository only supports CMIS 1.0).
Is there some way to run the TCK CMIS 1.0 unit tests even with the latest CMIS Workbench?
If not, what version of CMIS Workbench was the last before they switched to the CMIS 1.1 TCK unit tests?
The TCK automatically adapts to the repository. If the repository reports (in the repository info) that it is a CMIS 1.0 repository, only CMIS 1.0 tests will be executed. If the repository reports that it is a CMIS 1.1 repository, then CMIS 1.1 tests will be executed. All CMIS Workbench versions since 0.9.0-beta-1 do that.
If a TCK test fails, it's either a repository issue or the repository reports the wrong CMIS version.
Is it possible to use CCTray 1.2 to access older Cruise Control .Net 1.0? I was thinking it should be possible to use the "Supply custom HTTP URL" option, but I don't know how to configure it.
I would think it is possible as 1.3 and 1.4 intermingled quite nice. I think the URL form you are looking for is http://yourwebhost/ccnet at least that is what works in 1.3 and 1.4 I will point out 1.4.3 should be out soon, and with all of the bug fixes and added functionality 1.4.3 would be a good upgrade target if you are thinking of going that way, then you could get everything back on the same version.