Re: Forms 4.0.12 to 4.0.13 Problems?

From: Robert Goodwin <robert.goodwin_at_msfc.nasa.gov>
Date: 1995/04/05
Message-ID: <3lu670$mcs_at_hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>#1/1


In article <3lse8a$mjt_at_killerbee.jsc.nasa.gov>,

   Vish Gopalan <vgopalan_at_borg24.jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>robert.goodwin_at_msfc.nasa.gov (Robert Goodwin) wrote:
>>
>> Our team has been experiencing what appear to be backward compatability
>> problems when upgrading from Forms 4.0.12 to Forms 4.0.13. Things that
 we've
>> developed into our applications under 4.0.12 suddenly cease to work under
>> 4.0.13. The most recent (but by no means the only) example of this is that
 we
>> get a core dump when trying to use the RUN_PRODUCT built-in under 4.0.13.
 Has
>> anyone else experienced this problem, or are we just doing something wrong?
>>
>> :-[ Robert
>>
>
>We are just planning to migrate our applications to Forms 4.0.13 on
>Solaris 2.4. I am very interested in knowing about known problems.

Actually, we're still trying to determine if the problems may be on our end. At this point, we have still not been able to call the RUN_PRODUCT built-in without getting a core dump.

Another problem we were having was the inability of 4.0.13 to recognize stored procedures that worked fine under 4.0.12. We finally traced that problem to a restriction in 4.0.13 on the datatypes that can be used for parameters and function return values. In 4.0.12, the char datatype was supported, but in 4.0.13 it is not. This, in my mind, is obviously a problem with backward compatibility.

>Also, if we run into a major problem, can we downgrade to 4.0.12 by
>simply regenerating our forms (since Forms binary files may have been
>recreated after regenerating with 4.0.13) ?

I would suggest saving a 4.0.12 copy of the form before upgrading, just in case.


     Robert Goodwin            | phone: (205)461-4582
     Database Development      | fax:   (205)461-4999
     New Technology, Inc.      |
     Huntsville, AL            | robert.goodwin_at_msfc.nasa.gov
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
               "It's a database thing.  You wouldn't understand."
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Apr 05 1995 - 00:00:00 CEST

Original text of this message