Sorry maybe I shoud of said, same petal version
and therefore "should be" compatible. If not, then we
are dealing with a defect.
The problem you are referring to oddly enough did not come
up during beta (unless something slipped into the final release).
So a lot of folks have used 2000e models in 2001 without this
problem. So my question, in trying to understand why
you see this, is what might be different in your environment.
- custom property files?
- property files controlled?
- using configuration management?
- anything else out of the ordinary?
If I were to try and recreate this problem I would simple
make a C++ model in 2000e, set some properties, save, open
in 2001? And now my properties would be replace with 2001
defaults. Or does it seem more complicated than this?
Due to the holiday season, a couple of folks I want to check
with on this defect are not in this week. Next week I can
post further details on what I find out on this end.
Patrick Kennedy
Rational Support
On Dec 23, 9:26, Frank Dueber wrote:
> Subject: Re: (ROSE) WE bought a copy of Rose and received 2001
>
> Hello :)6
>
> > version numbers are different, but important thing is petal version,
> > both petal 44. No new syntax was added to the file format for
> > 2001. So files should be compatible between 2000e and 2001.
>
> No, they aren't compatible. We opened a case at Rational support (CaseId:
> 649365). It's something as changed text at properties (e.g. using (value
> (value Text "hpp")) instead of (value "hpp")). So be careful using 2000e
> files at 2001. All our own property settings were scrambled! But Rational
> support is working on it.......
>
> And there seems to be a problem with sequence diagrams, too.
>
> Frank Dueber
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CAT Computer Anwendung Technologie GmbH
> Niederlassung Wilnsdorf
> 57234 Wilnsdorf Tel.: ++49 2737 97008
> Germany eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "David Stockwell (Pragmatics)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: (ROSE) WE bought a copy of Rose and received 2001
>
>
> >
> > version numbers are different, but important thing is petal version,
> > both petal 44. No new syntax was added to the file format for
> > 2001. So files should be compatible between 2000e and 2001.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > NT Unix Petal Format
> >
> > Rose 3.0 Rose 3.0 petal 37 3.0 Model
> > Rose 4.0 Rose 4.0 petal 40 4.0 Model
> > Rose 98, 98i Rose 98 petal 42 4.5/6.0 Model
> > Rose 98i SP1,2000 Rose 98i*,2000 petal 43 6.1/6.5 Model
> > Rose 2000e Rose 2000e petal 44 7.0 Model
> > Rose 2001 petal 44 7.1 Model
> >
> > *Rose 98i on Unix is named 6.0.xxxx BUT is actually 6.1 compatible.
> > i.e. If you go to SAVA AS menu and select 6.0, you will be saving
> > back to an older format.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Patrick Kennedy
> > Rational Support
> >
> > On Dec 22, 14:13, David Stockwell (Pragmatics) wrote:
> > > Subject: (ROSE) WE bought a copy of Rose and received 2001
> > >
> > > Our development team is using 2000e. We just bought another copy of the
> > software and received 2001
> > >
> > > Is rose compatible enough that we won't need to upgrade the rest of the
> team
> > to 2001?
> > >
> > > Here is a petal file written by 2001:
> > >
> > > (object Petal
> > >
> > > version 44
> > >
> > > _written "Rose 7.1.9642.27"
> > >
> > > charSet 0)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is a petal file written by 2000e
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > (object Petal
> > >
> > > version 44
> > >
> > > _written "Rose 7.0.9420.17"
> > >
> > > charSet 0)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As you can see the rose number is different. What other problems are we
> > going to run into?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David Stockwell
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [ Attachment (text/x-html): 1196 bytes
> > > Character set: iso-8859-1
> > > Encoded with "quoted-printable" ]
> > >-- End of excerpt from David Stockwell (Pragmatics)
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> > * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> > *
> > * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > * Archive of messages:
> http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
> > * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *
> > * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> > *
> > * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > * Subject:<BLANK>
> > * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> > *
> > *************************************************************************
> >
> >
>
> ************************************************************************
> * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> *
> * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
> * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> *
> * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subject:<BLANK>
> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> *
> *************************************************************************
>
>-- End of excerpt from Frank Dueber
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
