Dave, something tells me that this is directly related to the change from C
to Java, but, for compatibility sake, you should stand-up a quick Tomcat
and Mid-Tier (not hard), even locally on your machine, just to check if the
newer client takes care of the problem, if so, you may be looking at a bit
more of an upgrade than expected with this release :)

On Sep 1, 2016 8:02 AM, "Dave Barber" <[email protected]> wrote:

> **
> All,
>
> We have an in house developed incident management application that is
> currently running on ARS 7.6.04/Solaris/Oracle.  We're starting the process
> of database upgrades (from 10 to 12) in order to support ARS9.
>
> One of our dev instances has already gone through the upgrade, and aside
> from a slight behaviour issue (which will be discussed below), it all seems
> pretty good.  Similar performance, despite our ridiculously old hardware.
>
> Onto the behaviour issue.
>
> We have a few points where a user will key in a partial company or contact
> name, and a list will then be presented.  On 7.6.04 this works fine, list
> of the potentially matching companies or contacts is displayed, along with
> a few related fields to help the user choose.
>
> On v9, fields in the selection list with nothing in them (ie. "null") are
> actually displayed with the word "null", rather than being presented with,
> well, nothing.  This is from a set fields/search, if multiple records
> found, present a list.
>
> We are currently accessing the application via the 7.6.04 (SP4) user
> tool.  We don't actually have the mid-tier installed on our legacy
> developer instances.
>
> Assuming I have explained this adequately, is this difference in behaviour
> being caused by a minor compatibility issue between the v9 server and the
> 7.6.04 user tool?
>
> Regards
>
> Dave
> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_

_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
"Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"

Reply via email to