I’m currently on CakePHP 3.5
My ISP is forcing us off PHP 7.2 onto either 7.3 or 7.4
There are some errors from the Cake core code in 7.3, mostly related to compact() (a known breaking change), but I think there are others as well. I’ve seen references to these errors, but I can’t find a definitive version of Cake to target.
What is the minimum CakePHP version needed for PHP 7.3 or PHP 7.4?
That shouldn't really matter too much, if you'd upgrade to 3.6 you could as well just upgrade to 3.9 while your at it, besides fixes it's mostly deprecations and new features, and a handful of behavior changes.
That being said, 7.3 has been added to the test runs in 3.6.13, and 7.4 was added in 3.8.7, so the latest 3.6/3.8 would be your minimum.
Related
I am trying to setup solr in my project, want to know which is the most stable and tested version of solr available. I want to use mapr filesystem.
Basically, there are two rules for all Solr releases:
They all have a large number of tests to pass before release.
Still, there's some issue with every .0 release, so it's wise to choose the bugfixed .1 even later releases.
Bonus: This applies to every type of file system you want Solr to run on.
Then there is a trade-off between having the latest features and having it around in field use for longer time. Of course, version 3.6 was thoroughly tested in the field, because it's been around for many years. But it's so outdated you should not choose it. The same applies for the 4.x branch.
On the other end, there's the 6.x branch which has many cool new features but is relatively young. So personally, I recommend you to go with the latest release of the 5.x branch. While the 5.0 release had many new features introduced, the work up to the latest released version 5.5.4 had many fixes applied and still gets backports for things that are fixed in the 6.x branch.
I've got a SOLR 6.0 instance on Windows. Not a cluster, a single server setup. I'd like to migrate to 6.2, the latest, because why not. There's an 600GB index that I don't want to lose.
Please, how? The guide at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Upgrading+Solr contains no guidance whatsoever.
Just changing the Solr versions should be enough. The index format will be updated when the new segments are written, but 6.2 are able to read 6.0 indexes just fine. Unless you're bitten by the 6.1-thing about historical dates, installing the new Solr version and pointing in to your existing dataDir should work.
As always, testing it out somewhere else than production first is a good idea.
My company is currently using Cassandra version 2.1.8.
As of right now, there exist a version 3.7
Is there some way to know if I should update without going through all lines in the changelog? Is 2.1.8 a fine, stable version, or is it horribly outdated, and should be upgraded?
As this isn't really "about programming" it's probably off-topic, but I'll answer because I know you won't get an answer on a different Stack Exchange site.
I wouldn't consider 2.1.8 horribly out-dated. There are places out there still running on much, much older versions than that.
Prior to 3.0, features are usually added in major point releases (2.0, 2.1, 2.2, etc...). Minor releases like 2.1.14 are used for fixing bugs, so upgrading to the latest minor release is A) low risk and B) probably in your best interest.
Even though DataStax has now released a DSE version containing Cassandra 3.0 at its core, I would still caution you against upgrading to 3.x. 3.x involved a major rewrite of the underlying storage engine. It does have a lot of new features, but I'd recommend being patient while some of the 3.x JIRA tickets settle down a little bit.
the #cassandra irc channel greeting says:
Topic: cassandra.apache.org | Tick-Tock: 3.7
| Current: 2.2.6 | Next: 3.0.7
| oldstable: 2.1.14
So 2.1.8 isn't that old. Don't pay attention to the Tick-Tock versions - they're pretty much the bleeding edge version. (Datastax Enterprise 5.0)[http://www.datastax.com/2016/06/introducing-datastax-enterprise-5-0] was released yesterday and it contains cassandra 3.0.something
Can any one tell me liferay 6.1.2 ce ga3 on tomcat 7 and solr 4.6 on tomcat 7 are compatible?
Used the solr web portlet avaible from liferay market.
I am working on this from last 3 days and i am still getting version issues,executing query issues ,SolrCore 'collection1' is not available issues, CommonsHTTPSolrServer even after following lot of suggestion.
I tried all permutation regarding the jars.
slf4j-api-1.6.6
slf4j-log4j12-1.6.6
slf4j-simple-1.6.6
solr-common-1.3.0
solr-core-4.6.0
solr-solrj-4.6.0
httpclient-4.3.1
httpcore-4.3
httpmime-4.3.1
I also raised this issue on liferay support forum : https://issues.liferay.com/browse/LPS-42758
No they are not compatible (out of the box).
But it is doable, at least it is with Solr 4.4.0 and 4.5.1, so I would guess with Solr 4.6.0 also.
General steps to make it work:
solr-web
download latest solr-web plugin (source) for 6.1.x
modify dependacies (see below)
modify source files (resolve compilation errors)
modify solr-spring.xml (if needed)
modify schema.xml (look at both liferay's and solr version, and "merge" (what makes sense) them)
List of jars
commons-codec-1.6.jar
commons-io-2.1.jar
httpclient-4.2.3.jar
httpcore-4.2.2.jar
httpmime-4.2.3.jar
noggit-0.5.jar
portal-compat-shared.jar
slf4j-api-1.6.1.jar
solr-solrj-4.5.1.jar
wstx-asl-3.2.7.jar
zookeeper-3.4.5.jar (probably could be removed, I did not)
Additional (provided) jars not packaged in war
portal-service-6.1.1.jar
util-java-6.1.1.jar
servlet-api-2.5.jar
Specifically for CommonsHTTPSolrServer ClassNotFoundException
in BasicAuthSolrServer constructor you should use HttpSolrServer, instead of CommonsHTTPSolrServer
I need to upgrade my current version of DNN this week. I am currently using 2.1.1. I don't want to do everything twice, so, I have several questions.
Is there an upgrade tool or some scripts somewhere that will help me to do an upgrade.
Am I better off installing 4.9 or 5.0. It is production.
If I go with 4.9, will I be able to upgrade to 5.0 when it releases?
I personally strongly disagree with ALassek, you can upgrade DotNetNuke, you just have to follow the steps listed and as long as you do that it isn't a big deal at all, but there are a few key things to keep in mind as you set down the road to do your migration.
DO NOT USE 5.0 in production at this time. 5.0 is only in RC2 stage at this time and using it in production is NOT recommended and an upgrade path from RC2 -> Final might not be possible!
If you plan on trying to upgrade from 2.1.1 go from it to the most current version of 2, then go to 3, then go to 3.3.7, then go to 4.4.1, then to 4.6.2, then to 4.9.0. Typically you are able to make it, but some sites are not.
Some modules though will need to be updated to work with DNN 4.x, depending on the numbers and vendors this can be an easy process or can involve needing to find other providers for the specific functionality at hand.
As for the potential to upgrade to 5.0 from 4.9, yes, that will be 100% supported once 5.0 is in a production ready state.
It's been my experience that DotNetNuke has a tendancy to release breaking changes without documenting them (or documenting much of anything, for that matter). Without knowing exactly what you have installed in it, it's impossible to say exactly how screwed you are. But I can guarantee you the transition will likely not be easy, especially if you have a lot of modules installed.
Between 2.1.1 => 4.9, so much has changed that I can't imagine there is any automated way to upgrade. You're better off starting from scratch and seeing what still works. Most likely you will need to find newer versions of any modules you're using, or replacements for those that aren't being kept current.
To be honest, I don't know. But I see that the DNN download page very strongly states that the 5.0 release-candidates are "NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PRODUCTION USE".
There was a huge amount of breaking changes between 2x and 3x which will cause pretty much any custom modules you have to have to be upgraded or replaced. Other than that Mitchel is the DNN man and I would defer to him.