| idl 5.3 runtime on idl 5.2 system work? [message #18376] |
Fri, 17 December 1999 00:00  |
Tony L.
Messages: 1
Registered: December 1999
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi all. I just upgraded to 5.3 and created a .sav runtime which I then
ported to another NT computer running 5.2. On the 5.2 system my runtime
doesn't work, gives me a 'attempt to call undefined procedure/function"
error. Works fine on my 5.3 NT system. Anybody else encounter a similar
problem?
Tony
|
|
|
|
| Re: idl 5.3 runtime on idl 5.2 system work? [message #18406 is a reply to message #18376] |
Thu, 23 December 1999 00:00  |
davidf
Messages: 2866
Registered: September 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill Biagiot (wbiagiot@suffolk.lib.ny.us) writes:
> I would submit to RSI that major 6 month upgrades are *NOT* always a
> good thing and that backwards compatibility be maintained AT LEAST in
> the major revision class (i.e. IDL4.x, IDL5.x, IDL6.x).
Yeah, and while they are at it, why don't they talk to the
chip makers too and get them to stop turning out faster
chips every six months. And why doesn't somebody do something
about these days getting shorter in the Fall, when it's still
nice enough to play tennis in the evening.
Schheesh. Whose running this joint, anyway?
Happy Holidays! :-)
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting
Phone: 970-221-0438 E-Mail: davidf@dfanning.com
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
|
|
|
|
| Re: idl 5.3 runtime on idl 5.2 system work? [message #18407 is a reply to message #18376] |
Thu, 23 December 1999 00:00 |
Liam Gumley
Messages: 473
Registered: November 1994
|
Senior Member |
|
|
wbiagiot@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
> I wouldn't have expected that. While that may be periodically necessary
> for RSI, it is bad news for customers. We are currently in the process
> of accelerating sales of our IDL application to military customers (with
> IDLRT 5.2). Maintenance is currently not included because it would make
> for a configuration nightmare having to bi-yearly upgrade our in-field
> platforms. This SAV file format change now precludes us from taking
> advantage of any new 5.3 development environment enhancements and new
> bug fixes for older problems.
>
> I would submit to RSI that major 6 month upgrades are *NOT* always a
> good thing and that backwards compatibility be maintained AT LEAST in
> the major revision class (i.e. IDL4.x, IDL5.x, IDL6.x).
>
> Liam, thanks for the info - I stand corrected. I assumed that since
> 5.2.1 apps run on 5.2.0 RT that some backwards compatibility existed.
> My boss is going to be real happy with this tidbit of information.
Bill,
The following is extracted from the IDL 5.2 online help for SAVE:
"The SAVE procedure saves variables, system variables, and IDL routines
in a file using the XDR (eXternal Data Representation) format for later
recovery by RESTORE. Note that variables and routines cannot be saved in
the same file. Note also that save files containing routines may not be
compatible between different versions of IDL, but that files containing
data are always backwards-compatible."
I distribute my SHARP application via SAVE files:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/~gumley/sharp/sharp.html
I've tried to make sure that SHARP supports IDL 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 (and now
5.3), and it means that I need to create a SAVE file for each version.
This implies that I need to have 4 different licensed versions of IDL
available, which is not always easy. I think it can probably be done
without too much trouble in Windows (I had IDL 5.2 and IDL 5.3beta
co-existing happily under Windows), but in UNIX I can tell you it's
painful (licenses need to be changed, license manager re-started etc.).
However I think a more difficult problem is taking account of the
differences in the IDL language in the different versions, even in IDL
5.x (I've given up supporting IDL 4.x). Some examples:
- The SIZE keywords DIMENSIONS, TNAME, N_DIMENSIONS were introduced in
5.1,
- The DEVICE keyword GET_VISUAL_DEPTH was introduced (but not
documented) in 5.1,
- The DEVICE keyword GET_DECOMPOSED was introduced in IDL 5.2,
- The QUERY_* functions (e.g. QUERY_GIF) were introduced in IDL 5.2,
- The READ_IMAGE function was introduced in IDL 5.3.
All these enhancements are useful (I use them often), but if I want my
code to be backwards compatible within IDL 5.x, I must choose one of the
following approaches:
(1) Use any and all functionality in a particular version (e.g. IDL 5.2)
and don't support users with earlier IDL versions (they must upgrade),
(2) Don't use any new functionality beyond a particular version (e.g.
IDL 5.0), which requires all kinds of workarounds. For example, see my
IMDISP procedure which is designed to work with all IDL 5.x versions:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/~gumley/imdisp.html
(3) Write wrappers which detect and account for version differences.
I've done this sort of thing in my COLORINFO function:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/~gumley/colortools.html
I think the best thing to do is pick a strategy for supporting IDL
versions, and make sure your customers know well in advance if and when
they will need to upgrade.
Cheers,
Liam.
--
Liam E. Gumley
Space Science and Engineering Center, UW-Madison
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/~gumley
|
|
|
|
| Re: idl 5.3 runtime on idl 5.2 system work? [message #18409 is a reply to message #18376] |
Thu, 23 December 1999 00:00 |
wbiagiot
Messages: 59
Registered: January 1999
|
Member |
|
|
In article <3860E450.B41BD95A@ssec.wisc.edu>,
Liam Gumley <Liam.Gumley@ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
> The problem is not that a function may have changed in IDL 5.3. The
real
> issue is that the format of SAVE files which include compiled routines
> is different in IDL 5.3.
I wouldn't have expected that. While that may be periodically necessary
for RSI, it is bad news for customers. We are currently in the process
of accelerating sales of our IDL application to military customers (with
IDLRT 5.2). Maintenance is currently not included because it would make
for a configuration nightmare having to bi-yearly upgrade our in-field
platforms. This SAV file format change now precludes us from taking
advantage of any new 5.3 development environment enhancements and new
bug fixes for older problems.
I would submit to RSI that major 6 month upgrades are *NOT* always a
good thing and that backwards compatibility be maintained AT LEAST in
the major revision class (i.e. IDL4.x, IDL5.x, IDL6.x).
Liam, thanks for the info - I stand corrected. I assumed that since
5.2.1 apps run on 5.2.0 RT that some backwards compatibility existed.
My boss is going to be real happy with this tidbit of information.
-Bill B.
--
"They don't think it be like it is, but it do."
Oscar Gamble, NY Yankees
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
