JHeadstart version 9.0.3.58 compatible with Oracle10g iAS version 10.1.2.0.
Dear miss/sir,
Currently we have various JHeadstart applications running in an Oracle Applicatio server software version 10g (9.0.4.2) environment.
We plan to upgrade Oracle iAS to version 10.1.2.0.2 and have the following questions:
- Do we need to upgrade our current JHeadstart version (9.0.3.58) also in case of an OracleiAS upgrade ?
- Is our current JHeadstart version (9.0.3.58 compatible with Oracle10g iAS version 10.1.2.0.2
- To which version of JHeadstart do we need to upgrade in case an upgrade is needed ?
- Is a (substantial) rewrite of the JHeadstart applications ncessary in the last case ?
Regards,
Ger van de Goor
Oracle DBA
Ger,
The JHeadstart version you are using is quite old and not officially certified against 10.1.2.0. However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't work. I suggest you perform a test and see whether you run into any problems.
Of course, longer time it is advisable to upgrade to the latest jheadstart version. JHeadstart has evolved considerably since the version you are using, and is now fully based on ADF and JSF.
Migrating your JHeadstart application to the latest version will certainly have some impact since the underlying technologies have changed. The effort required to do the migration is hard to predict without knowing your application. Compared to the 9.0.3.58 version, the current JHeadstart release is much more powerful and flexible in terms of what you can generate, so functionality that took a long time to built post-generation with 9.0.3 might now be generated in a few minutes.
If you are interested in assessing the impact of a potential upgrade, I suggest you contact your local Oracle representative, or e-mail [email protected]
Steven Davelaar,
JHeadstart Team.
Similar Messages
-
Is JHeadstart 10.1.3.1 compatible with JDeveloper 10.1.3.0 (minimal SU2) ?
Is JHeadstart 10.1.3.1 compatible with JDeveloper 10.1.3.0 (minimal SU2) ?
I found different Compatibility notes:
C:\jdev1013\jdev\extensions\oracle.jheadstart.10.1.3\doc\releasenotes.html
. This release can be used with the Studio Edition of JDeveloper 10.1.3.0, 10.1.3.1 or 10.1.3.2.
In document "Building Enterprise JSF Applications with Oracle JHeadstart for ADF (10.1.3)"
. JHeadstart 10.1.3.1 is not certified to work with JDeveloper 10.1.3.0 Production.
http://blogs.oracle.com/jheadstart/2007/03/04
. Oracle JHeadstart 10.1.3.1 Now Available!
. This release can be used with JDeveloper 10.1.3.2 and 10.1.3.1. It can NOT be used with JDeveloper 10.1.3.0
(we use JDeveloper 10.1.3.0.4 SU5 and found no problems so far and we don't want to migrate to a new JDeveloper version if it is not 100% necessary)
Frank........ I remember now, we also made a copy of the xml.jar from JHS to java-lib, because the embedded OC4J gave an exception (I thought this was related to not-finding the xml.jar in the JHS-lib) ......
I think this is cause that my JDeveloper/JHS configuration is working.
xml.jar copied from
C:\jdev1013\jdev\extensions\oracle.jheadstart.10.1.3\designtime\lib\xml.jar to C:\jdev1013\lib -
I downloaded Version 4 and installed it. At no point did it say that it was not compatible with the version of OS X that I am running (10.4.11) now that it is installed it will not open but it has already up graded from 3.6 so I have lost the lot. How can I download a version of 3.6 so that I can use it again or should I just pack up and use Safari as all I can get from your site is version 4. HELP!!!
Go to this link and find your language:
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html -
iPod 4,1 will not update to iOS 7. I updated my iMac to 10.9.1 (maverick). Latest Numbers version on iMac is not compatible with Numbers on iPod. Ideas? Can I go back a version with Numbers? I downloaded old version of Numbers 2.0.1 from DVD but with both versions the 2.0.1 will not open. So both versions are present but only the new version functions. I tried to drag the new version to the trash but the old version still runs error message and will not open. I did not try to restart with the new version in the trash.
Maybe. See:
Reverting to previous version of Numbers -
I'm trying to silently upgrade my environment to FF 7. I've gotten the silent install working great, it puts in my Proxy Server info, reassigns the home page and all that. But, the last version we pushed out was FF 3.5. If a user had that on their PC and they run the FF7 install, they get weird messages when clicking on the icon.
XULRunner: Error: Platform version '7.0' is not compatible with minVersion >= 1.9.1 maxVersion <=1.9.1
Another message they get is:
AutoConfigAlert:
Netscape.cfg/AutoConfig failed. Error: pref failed: [Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x8000ffff (NS_ERROR_UNEXPECTED) [nsIPrefBranch.setBoolPref]" nsresult: "0x8000ffff (NS_ERROR_UNEXPECTED)" location: "JS frame :: prefcalls.js :: pref :: line 70" data: no]
This is on Windows XPDo you have other virtualization or security software that might protect .ini and possibly other files in the Firefox program folder (C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\) and prevent Firefox from updating them properly?
You need to do a clean reinstall.
Download a fresh Firefox copy and save the file to the desktop.
* Firefox 7.0.x: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html
* Uninstall your current Firefox version.
* Do not remove personal data when you uninstall the current version or you lose your bookmarks and other data in the profile folder.
Remove the Firefox program folder before installing that newly downloaded copy of the Firefox installer.
* It is important to delete the Firefox program folder to remove all the files and make sure that there are no problems with files that were leftover after uninstalling.
Your bookmarks and other profile data are stored elsewhere in the Firefox Profile Folder and won't be affected by a reinstall, but make sure that you do not select to remove personal data if you uninstall Firefox.
* http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_folder_-_Firefox
* http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_backup -
After update to 3.6.20, ERROR, platform version 1.9.2.18 not compatible with Min/Max v 1.9.2.20
Win2000 Pro SP4. Been running FireFox for several years. Ver3.6.6 since 03/22/2011. Got a msg window in FireFox stating important security update available. ''(ADDED INFO: Checked System Requirements of update and then...)'' As usual, I clicked yes load it. A few moments later I got the message: "XULRunner Error:
Platform version '1.9.2.18' is not compatible with
minVersion>=1.9.2.20
maxVersion<=1.9.2.20"
That is it, NO MORE FIREFOX!!! How can I fix it and not loose any of my 'stuff'?You're welcome
-
I want to add another management server to our existing SCOM environment. But whenever I run this setup on a new server I get stuck in the window for selecting the OperationsManager database. The database field stays blank and in the OpsMgrSetupWizard log
there are lines that the setup version is not compatible with the database version. But I use the same installer as when I installed the other management servers a year ago.
Maybe there is a newer setup installer? But I can't find it.
[10:42:54]: Error:
:Error:setup version: 7.0.9538.0 is not compatible with database version: 7.1.10226.0
[10:42:54]: Info:
:Info:Using DB command timeout = 1800 seconds.
[10:42:54]: Info:
:Info:isOMDatabase: Read returned true. so far, this is OM DB, not an empty DB
[10:42:54]: Debug:
:Connection was not open. We will try to open it.
[10:42:54]: Debug:
:SqlConnectionReady returned True.
[10:42:54]: Info:
:Info:Using DB command timeout = 1800 seconds.
[10:42:54]: Info:
:Info:isOMDatabase: Read did not return true. The MG is missing. This is not OM DB
[10:42:54]: Info:
:Info:Using DB command timeout = 1800 seconds.
[10:42:54]: Always:
:Azman store table not found in OperationsManagerDW table, assuming this is an not a valid OMDB for empty DB scenario.
[10:42:54]: Info:
:Info:DatabaseConfigurationPage: DB connection attempt completed.
[10:42:54]: Info:
:Info:DatabaseConfigurationPage: DB connection attempt completed.Never mind, found it!
Apparently there was a newer version of SCOM setup in msdn and someone upgraded our existing SCOM environment. Downloaded the new setup, new report viewer controls and a System
CLR Types for Microsoft® SQL Server® 2012 and now it works!! -
This is what I think may have happened. The other day, Thursday Sept 8th, I shut down my pc in the middle of a Firefox upgrade. Now when I try to access Firefox on my pc, I get this error message:
XULRUNNER Error: Platform version '6.0.2 is not compatible with min Version >= 6.0.1 max Version < 6.0.1
What is this about and how can I retsore access to Firefox on my pc?If you use ZoneAlarm Extreme Security then try to disable Virtualization.
Do a clean reinstall and delete the Firefox program folder.
* http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser_will_not_start_up#XULRunner_error_after_an_update
*[[/questions/869812]]
*[[/questions/869951]] -
I installed a new printer and now Photoshop Elements tells me I can't print. The error message is "The saved printer information is not compatible with this version of Photoshop Elements, or the saved printer is no longer available. You will need to check your printer settings before printing." I have uninstalled and re-installed Photoshop Elements, checked my printer settings and still I can't print a photo.
Hi ,
Please update to PSE 13.1
13.1 has solved this problem.
Refer to this link.
Photoshop Elements Help | Printer errors with Photoshop Elements 13 -
Cannot install Logic from DVD version 9.0.0. because it is not compatible with the latest OS 10.8.3
As I tried to install Logic 9.0.0 the OS comes out with a message saying that the OS is not compatible with this version of Logic.
I have Logic conventional DVD Software package.
How can I get this done?
Any help, I appreciate!
Thanks!No, the message prevents me from installing.
Now, I took the App Icon from my Laptop which has the latest Logic Update installed and throw it in my new iMac's Application Folder. It seems to work OK.
What I havent installed are the Additional Content and all the DVDs that come with Logic. -
Photoshop CS2: "file not compatible with this version of Photoshop" error
So, I've been working with Photoshop for almost 20 years now, and lately I've been getting this error message on occasion (but not on every file) when I go to open a file I worked on just yesterday: "Could not complete your request because the file is not compatible with this version of Photoshop." I just worked on it yesterday in Photoshop. The file was saved as a PSD, and when I attempt to open it through Painter IX, that program tells me that it's not a Photoshop document. Why can't I open this file anymore, and why is it giving me this error message when I don't have Norton AntiVirus installed, and my 'maximize PSD and PSB file compatibility' is set to 'always'??
Does anyone have an idea on how I can open my file? How can I get around this, and how do I prevent it from happening again?
OS: OSX 10.4.11
Photoshop CS2
Info:
Kind: Adobe Photoshop file
Size: 394.4MB
Created: December 13, 2007
Modified: Yesterday at 3:54 PMThis is the boilerplate text I use in connection to saving to a network (please NOTE the part where it explains that normally, it does work, but that it is impossible to troubleshoot someone else's network remotely, and that's why it's not supported by Adobe):
If you are opening files over a network or saving them to a network server, please
cease and desist immediately
in the event you are currently experiencing problems with one or more files.
Working across a network is not supported.
See:
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/322391.html
Copy the
CLOSED file from your server to your local hard disk, work on it, save it again to your local hard disk, close it, and copy the closed file back to the server.
Of course, the fact that Adobe does not support working across a network does not necessarily mean it won't work. It should.
Adobe's position is that there are too many variables in a network environment for them to guarantee that everything will work correctly in every network, especially given the fact that if something does
not work properly, it's probably the network's fault, and Adobe has no way of troubleshooting your network.
If you can't work locally, you are on your own, and if something happens, you're on your own. If you must work from a server, make sure your network administrator is a competent professional.
When problems arise, a lot of valuable work can be lost. -
What are the SQL server versions those are compatible with XI 3.0.
Hi All,
Please suggest,
what are the SQL server versions those are compatible with XI 3.0.
or with which SQL server versions XI 3.0 will interact using JDBC Adapter.Check in the [Product Availability Matrix |https://websmp201.sap-ag.de/~form/handler?_APP=00200682500000001303&_EVENT=DISP_NEW&00200682500000002804=01200314690900000192]in market place for more information on this
Thanks
SaNv... -
Which version of Weblogic on Solaris is compatible with Oracle 8.1.7 - Unicode?
Hi folks,
We want upgrade WLS 4.5.1 to one of the last version of WLS, but also we are
planing upgrade Oracle to 8.1.7 version and migrate the character set of the
database to UTF8 (Unicode),
so we need to know which versions of WLS are compatible with Oracle 8.1.7
and Unicode as Character Set.
Thanks in advance.
Moises Moreno.Hi Moises Moreno
The latest version of weblogic server is 6.1 with service pack 1. This version
supports oracle 8.1.7 on major unix platforms viz., solaris(2.6,2.7,2.8),
hp-unix(11.0,11.0i), linux7.1, Aix4.3.3 and on windows platforms viz.,
NTwithsp5, 2000.
BEA jdrivers are having Multibyte character set support (UTF8).
Note : Weblogic server 5.1 with SP10 also supports oracle 8.1.7.
FMI : http://www.weblogic.com/platforms/index.html#jdbc
Thanks & Regards
BEA Customer Support
Moises Moreno wrote:
Hi folks,
We want upgrade WLS 4.5.1 to one of the last version of WLS, but also we are
planing upgrade Oracle to 8.1.7 version and migrate the character set of the
database to UTF8 (Unicode),
so we need to know which versions of WLS are compatible with Oracle 8.1.7
and Unicode as Character Set.
Thanks in advance.
Moises Moreno. -
After the most recent FF update, FF 3.6.6 will not load, citing the error message: "XULRunner / Error: Platform version '1.9.2.3' is not compatible with minVersion>=1.9.2.6 / maxVersion". Tried updating XULRunner with no luck. Downloaded fresh copy and installed. Still no luck.
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== FF updated to 3.6.6 ==
== User Agent ==
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.4; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)Do a clean reinstall and download a fresh Firefox copy from http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/all.html and save the file to the desktop.
Uninstall your current Firefox version and remove the Firefox program folder before installing that copy of the Firefox installer.
It is important to delete the Firefox program folder to remove all the files and make sure that there are no problems with files that were leftover after uninstalling.
You can skip the step to create a new profile, that is not necessary for this issue.
See http://kb.mozillazine.org/Standard_diagnostic_-_Firefox#Clean_reinstall -
Old Bookmarks are not compatible with Firefox version 20+
Background Information:
I use the old client version 3.6 as there's an old utility addon that the author stopped updating and will not work with the newer revisions. Despite disabling the update feature both in about:config and in preferences, the browser still eventually updates (Originally I was using 3.4, and would prefer to use that, but no matter how much I try I can no longer roll it back from 3.6 to 3.4 even if I reinstall using a 3.4 installer). As a result I've had a habit of keeping a copy of my firefox directory in case it updates itself again without asking, which it has. This might help you guys out in answering the countless people who have lost their bookmarks due to the upgrades released this year, and will hopefully someone to investigate and release a patch/utility to fix the issue.
Issue:
I have verified that the newest clients from at least version 20 and onwards, are not compatible with the older bookmark JSON files. People who have been upgraded to the latest revision not only lose their bookmarks, but CANNOT restore them either, as Firefox will only return the error message: "Unable to Process the Backup File".
I have confirmed that the files themselves are perfectly intact with no sign of corruption, and are as intended. They restore ok to older browser revisions (In my case specifically 3.6), but will not restore to the newer client revisions. This is not a fault with the bookmark backups, but with the newer clients (I'm guessing they changed the way they store the information in the JSONs at some point. I note in the code for the JSONs that GUID was never used in the older revisions, but it is in the newer revisions. Perhaps this is causing an incompatibility issue? You just need to adjust the client so that it looks for the GUID and if none can be found to ignore it rather than decide the file is corrupt.
Old JSON Code snippet: {"title":"","id":1,"dateAdded":1306666129870000,"lastModified":1306670152435000,"type":"text/x-moz-place-container","root":"placesRoot","children":[{"title":"Bookmarks Menu","id":2,"parent":1,"dateAdded":1306666129870000,"lastModified":1381254048121000,"type":"text/x-moz-place-container","root":"bookmarksMenuFolder","children":[{"title":"Recently Bookmarked","id":6,"parent":2,"annos":[{"name":"Places/SmartBookmark","flags":0,"expires":4,"mimeType":null,"type":3,"value":"RecentlyBookmarked"}],"type":"text/x-moz-place","uri":"place:folder=BOOKMARKS_MENU&folder=UNFILED_BOOKMARKS&folder=TOOLBAR&sort=12&excludeQueries=1&excludeItemIfParentHasAnnotation=livemark%2FfeedURI&maxResults=10&queryType=1"},{"index":1,"title":"Recent Tags","id":7,"parent":2,"annos":[{"name":"Places/SmartBookmark","flags":0,"expires":4,"mimeType":null,"type":3,"value":"RecentTags"}],"type":"text/x-moz-place","uri":"place:sort=14&type=6&maxResults=10&queryType=1"},{"index":2,"title":"","id":8,"parent":2,"dateAdded":1294868015246000,"lastModified":1294868015246000,"type":"text/x-moz-place-separator"}
New JSON Code Snippet: {"title":"","guid":"5rkFafJ6AnRZ","id":1,"index":0,"dateAdded":1396387525168000,"lastModified":1396387525168000,"type":"text/x-moz-place-container","root":"placesRoot","children":[{"title":"Bookmarks Menu","guid":"m7vLM41-lzQi","id":2,"index":0,"parent":1,"dateAdded":1396387525168000,"lastModified":1396387526173000,"type":"text/x-moz-place-container","root":"bookmarksMenuFolder","children":[{"title":"Recently Bookmarked","guid":"BEffyw6xva93","id":13,"index":0,"parent":2,"dateAdded":1396387526172000,"lastModified":1396387526172000,"annos":[{"name":"Places/SmartBookmark","flags":0,"expires":4,"value":"RecentlyBookmarked"}],"type":"text/x-moz-place","uri":"place:folder=BOOKMARKS_MENU&folder=UNFILED_BOOKMARKS&folder=TOOLBAR&queryType=1&sort=12&maxResults=10&excludeQueries=1"},{"title":"Recent Tags","guid":"WmnlbVv38Bjv","id":14,"index":1,"parent":2,"dateAdded":1396387526172000,"lastModified":1396387526172000,"annos":[{"name":"Places/SmartBookmark","flags":0,"expires":4,"value":"RecentTags"}],"type":"text/x-moz-place","uri":"place:type=6&sort=14&maxResults=10"}
Solution?
Well in my case I had a backup copy of the old revision directory. To restore I opened the copy, and exported the bookmarks as an HTML, which I restored in the newer client. If you do not have a copy of the old client, the best thing would be to try and reinstall an older revision of the client and either make a copy of the program folder and use another copy of that so you can use both the new and old clients and not worry about the loss of an older revision since you'll always have 2 copies of the old client (One you're using, one you use to restore if it upgrades). Or you export the bookmarks as an HTML, then upgrade the client to the newest and import the HTML instead of the JSON files.
Please investigate and create an easier solution to a silly incompatibility issue. ^_^This happens if you create a backup and forget to add the file extension manually when Firefox didn't add it automatically or you may have removed it when modifying the suggested name.
Maybe you are looking for
-
PreparedStatement & MySql not working ! Why ?!!?
Hello everyone. One question for you : I try to have a SELECT on a table to get a column value. I've used for that a preparedstatement but id didn't worked, I mean it returned nothing. Then I've used a simple statement which worked correctly. My ques
-
Upload new pdf file with the same name
We are trying to upload a pdf file with a specific name (i.e file.pdf) that has links to it on many pages of a website. We need the pdf file to keep the same name but when we try to upload it, Contribute is being 'smart' and changing the name so as t
-
It seems that every software manufacturer has to write a plethora of little gimmicks into their installation and setup files that loads trash onto my computer. I'm not talking about programs like _Chrome_, that gives me a chance to decline. I'm talki
-
Is anyone else noticing the same issue? I'm really unhappy with the upgrade, the darker home screen images alters the coloring and detracts from the overall "light" feeling.
-
How to optimize uptake of uploaded corpora?
When we upload corpora to MS Hub, segments are extracted, aligned, and filtered. We call "uptake" the proportion of segments that are used in the end, over the initial number of segments uploaded. In our experience, only about 70-75 % of segments a