Re: Converting 4D Server v11 to v17
That is very encouraging, Narinder. As mentioned I don't have subtables, so all is good there, and there may be a few PICTs but none, I think, that are critical. Trialling should prove or disprove that. And I don't use 4D Write so that's another plus. Your input truly appreciated. :) Regards, Pete 4D Tech mailing list wrote > In my experience 4D conversions have generally been fairly smooth, and > that's going back many versions. When I did a 4D v11 to v15 conversion > (Mac server and clients) a few years ago there were no significant issues > that I recall. I've recently completed a conversion of that same database > from v15 to v17 the task was bigger in that we wanted to deal with the > Subtables issue which we ignored in the previous conversion, and also > prepare for Object Notation support. In my case, the database had > widespread usage of the dot character in variables, method names, table > and form names. There were nearly 6000 warnings to address. It was a > painful task but I managed it. > > Other issues that most conversions will have is converting PICTs to PNG, > JPG etc as PICT is now deprecated but it's not difficult. Also, a number > of commands are obsoleted and they need to be addressed, either by removal > or replacement of more modern equivalents. > > The biggest issues with any conversion in my experience is the use of 4D > Plugins, especially third party ones that may no longer supported. With > 4D, 4D Write is now replaced with 4D Write Pro and from what I have read > it requires a complete re-write if you use that plugin. > > I'm sure there are some issues that I forget to mention, but I would say > not to be frightened to go for it. Assess the scope of conversion work > needed and plan from there. > > Regards, > > Narinder Chandi, > ToolBox Systems Ltd. > -- Sent from: http://4d.1045681.n5.nabble.com/4D-Tech-f1376241.html ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **
RE: Converting 4D Server v11 to v17
I suggest v15 because setting transparency when doing PICT conversion is not available in v13 On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:58:24 +, Peter BURGESS wrote: > Thank you Chip. > The suggestion, from other users and from my local 4D rep in > Australia, is for a 2-step conversion from v11 to v13, then to v17. > So, similar to your advice. > I will go that direction, and keep a watch out for PICT files. > > Regards, > Pete > > -Original Message- > From: Chip Scheide <4d_o...@pghrepository.org> > Sent: Friday, 11 October 2019 05:10 AM > > I have done a conversion from v13 - v16, as an experiment. I had no > problems. > I did not run this for my users. > I did some, but not extensive testing. > > as mentioned elsewhere there are a few things that I believe you can > not resolve without a 32 bit version of 4D (PICTs) from inside 4D, and > v17 is 64 bit only on windows (I believe). > SO you may want/need to go to v15 to resolve the PICT issue before the > final conversion to v17. > > If I am mistaken about the 32 bit/64bit part, or you are *SURE* you > have no PICTs, then you should be able to do the conversion in one step. > > We have done so much, with so little, for so long; We are now qualified to anything with nothing - unknown ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **
RE: Converting 4D Server v11 to v17
Thanks Tom, that is just the sort of news I was hoping for. Your input is appreciated. Regards, Pete -Original Message- From: Tom Benedict Sent: Friday, 11 October 2019 05:39 AM >v17 is 64 bit only on windows (I believe). On windows there are 32bit versions of v17 up through v17R4. v17R5 is the first 64bit only. >while v17 has a different architecture and is primarily object orientated, it >will still accept and interpret v11 style language. Is this truly the case? Yes, you can still happily program in 4D like you always have. Use of ORDA is not mandatory. You can do both in the same method. It’s not an "either/or" situation. Tom Benedict ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **
RE: Converting 4D Server v11 to v17
Thank you Chip. The suggestion, from other users and from my local 4D rep in Australia, is for a 2-step conversion from v11 to v13, then to v17. So, similar to your advice. I will go that direction, and keep a watch out for PICT files. Regards, Pete -Original Message- From: Chip Scheide <4d_o...@pghrepository.org> Sent: Friday, 11 October 2019 05:10 AM I have done a conversion from v13 - v16, as an experiment. I had no problems. I did not run this for my users. I did some, but not extensive testing. as mentioned elsewhere there are a few things that I believe you can not resolve without a 32 bit version of 4D (PICTs) from inside 4D, and v17 is 64 bit only on windows (I believe). SO you may want/need to go to v15 to resolve the PICT issue before the final conversion to v17. If I am mistaken about the 32 bit/64bit part, or you are *SURE* you have no PICTs, then you should be able to do the conversion in one step. ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **
Re: Converting 4D Server v11 to v17
>v17 is 64 bit only on windows (I believe). On windows there are 32bit versions of v17 up through v17R4. v17R5 is the first 64bit only. >while v17 has a different architecture and is primarily object orientated, it >will still accept and interpret v11 style language. Is this truly the case? Yes, you can still happily program in 4D like you always have. Use of ORDA is not mandatory. You can do both in the same method. It’s not an "either/or" situation. Tom Benedict > On Oct 10, 2019, at 09:09, Chip Scheide via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> > wrote: > > I have done a conversion from v13 - v16, as an experiment. I had no > problems. > I did not run this for my users. > I did some, but not extensive testing. > > as mentioned elsewhere there are a few things that I believe you can > not resolve without a 32 bit version of 4D (PICTs) from inside 4D, and > v17 is 64 bit only on windows (I believe). > SO you may want/need to go to v15 to resolve the PICT issue before the > final conversion to v17. > > If I am mistaken about the 32 bit/64bit part, or you are *SURE* you > have no PICTs, then you should be able to do the conversion in one step. > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:46:06 -0700 (MST), Peter.Burgess via 4D_Tech > wrote: >> >> In the thread circa October 2018, the suggestion seemed to be that while v17 >> has a different architecture and is primarily object orientated, it will >> still accept and interpret v11 style language. Is this truly the case? ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **
Re: Converting 4D Server v11 to v17
I have done a conversion from v13 - v16, as an experiment. I had no problems. I did not run this for my users. I did some, but not extensive testing. as mentioned elsewhere there are a few things that I believe you can not resolve without a 32 bit version of 4D (PICTs) from inside 4D, and v17 is 64 bit only on windows (I believe). SO you may want/need to go to v15 to resolve the PICT issue before the final conversion to v17. If I am mistaken about the 32 bit/64bit part, or you are *SURE* you have no PICTs, then you should be able to do the conversion in one step. On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:46:06 -0700 (MST), Peter.Burgess via 4D_Tech wrote: > > In the thread circa October 2018, the suggestion seemed to be that while v17 > has a different architecture and is primarily object orientated, it will > still accept and interpret v11 style language. Is this truly the case? We have done so much, with so little, for so long; We are now qualified to anything with nothing - unknown ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **
Re: Converting 4D Server v11 to v17
my biggest problem here was trying to find the PICTs that were static pictures, that as it turns out, 4D had placed for me. These came from a gradient background that 4D used as part of the Form Wizard for listing forms. I let 4D create a bunch of these for me for tables which either had specialized listing forms which did not do well in the user environment, or which had no direct user interaction, such as (many many) linking tables. Chip On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:52:10 +0100, Narinder Chandi via 4D_Tech wrote: > > Other issues that most conversions will have is converting PICTs to > PNG, JPG etc as PICT is now deprecated but it's not difficult. We have done so much, with so little, for so long; We are now qualified to anything with nothing - unknown ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **
Re: Converting 4D Server v11 to v17
In my experience 4D conversions have generally been fairly smooth, and that's going back many versions. When I did a 4D v11 to v15 conversion (Mac server and clients) a few years ago there were no significant issues that I recall. I've recently completed a conversion of that same database from v15 to v17 the task was bigger in that we wanted to deal with the Subtables issue which we ignored in the previous conversion, and also prepare for Object Notation support. In my case, the database had widespread usage of the dot character in variables, method names, table and form names. There were nearly 6000 warnings to address. It was a painful task but I managed it. Other issues that most conversions will have is converting PICTs to PNG, JPG etc as PICT is now deprecated but it's not difficult. Also, a number of commands are obsoleted and they need to be addressed, either by removal or replacement of more modern equivalents. The biggest issues with any conversion in my experience is the use of 4D Plugins, especially third party ones that may no longer supported. With 4D, 4D Write is now replaced with 4D Write Pro and from what I have read it requires a complete re-write if you use that plugin. I'm sure there are some issues that I forget to mention, but I would say not to be frightened to go for it. Assess the scope of conversion work needed and plan from there. Regards, Narinder Chandi, ToolBox Systems Ltd. I am available for new consulting opportunities… http://4d.1045681.n5.nabble.com/ANN-4D-Developer-Available-td5765443.html -- -Original Message- From: 4D_Tech <4d_tech-boun...@lists.4d.com> on behalf of 4D Tech Mailing List <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> Reply-To: 4D Tech Mailing List <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> Date: Tuesday, 8 October 2019 at 08:46 To: 4D Tech Mailing List <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> Cc: "Peter.Burgess" Subject: Converting 4D Server v11 to v17 Hi all. There was a small thread on this topic 12 months ago, overall the reaction seemed to be positive, but given that time has passed and other people may have tried a large 'jump' conversion such as this, I would be very interested in their experiences. In short we have a fairly large database, Windows platform, re-write not feasible, reasonable design with no sub-tables (I say reasonable because it has really only suffered from 2 primary developers and while they may not have been highly skilled programmers at least were not reckless), and we are moving to a Client base running Windows 10 PCs. We really need to upgrade, and preferably to the very latest version, otherwise the risk of some critical failure becomes unacceptable. I would like to gauge how feasible and/or straightforward it would be, to convert from 4D Server v11.9 to v17. Is it mostly just a matter of clicking a button and letting 4D do its thing, or are there some serious pitfalls I should watch out for? In the thread circa October 2018, the suggestion seemed to be that while v17 has a different architecture and is primarily object orientated, it will still accept and interpret v11 style language. Is this truly the case? Thanks for your time. Regards, Pete -- Sent from: http://4d.1045681.n5.nabble.com/4D-Tech-f1376241.html ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com ** ** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **
