TS 6.7.1 : available_templates.cfg DTD changed without a whisper?

We're setting up a sandbox with TS 6.7.1 + Patch1788 (aka Patch 2) on Solaris. (TS 6.5 sp2 in Production)

To my big surprise, the 6.7.1 DTD available_templates.dtd (syntax for available_templates.cfg) is very different from the DTD under 6.5. But this change is NOT highlighted in the Release Notes, while the WF doc (ts.670.wf.pdf) seems to describe the new format, without indicating DTD was different in the past. WTF?

Also, our existing available_templates.cfg, using old XML DTD, seems to work (not tested all possible scenarios) as long as we only use the old roles (author, editor, ...). When we try to give a WF to the new reviewer role, it doesn't work in the old syntax, but does work when using new syntax.

Que!?

Finally, I'm wondering about available_templates.ipl. This used to be the script that parsed the .cfg. Now, the .ipl seems to be still there, and still the same, but unused? With the .cfg/.dtd all changed, it can't be that available_templates.ipl is the script for parsing available_templates.cfg. Also, available_templates.ipl is no longer mentioned in the WF doc, as it was before... Is there another script that parses the new-style .cfg?

Comments and suggestions welcome! Smiley Happy

/upgrading TS always raises the stress levels :-/

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

pdasarat

We're setting up a sandbox with TS 6.7.1 + Patch1788 (aka Patch 2) on Solaris. (TS 6.5 sp2 in Production)

To my big surprise, the 6.7.1 DTD available_templates.dtd (syntax for available_templates.cfg) is very different from the DTD under 6.5. But this change is NOT highlighted in the Release Notes, while the WF doc (ts.670.wf.pdf) seems to describe the new format, without indicating DTD was different in the past. WTF?

Also, our existing available_templates.cfg, using old XML DTD, seems to work (not tested all possible scenarios) as long as we only use the old roles (author, editor, ...). When we try to give a WF to the new reviewer role, it doesn't work in the old syntax, but does work when using new syntax.

Que!?

Finally, I'm wondering about available_templates.ipl. This used to be the script that parsed the .cfg. Now, the .ipl seems to be still there, and still the same, but unused? With the .cfg/.dtd all changed, it can't be that available_templates.ipl is the script for parsing available_templates.cfg. Also, available_templates.ipl is no longer mentioned in the WF doc, as it was before... Is there another script that parses the new-style .cfg?

Comments and suggestions welcome!

/upgrading TS always raises the stress levels :-/

Even I noticed the change in the DTD. But I don't have any problems with this change.

Pradeep

Ambuj

Even I noticed the change in the DTD. But I don't have any problems with this change.

Pradeep

I hope we will get some update from IWOV on this..

kaalraa

We're setting up a sandbox with TS 6.7.1 + Patch1788 (aka Patch 2) on Solaris. (TS 6.5 sp2 in Production)
To my big surprise, the 6.7.1 DTD available_templates.dtd (syntax for available_templates.cfg) is very different from the DTD under 6.5. But this change is NOT highlighted in the Release Notes, while the WF doc (ts.670.wf.pdf) seems to describe the new format, without indicating DTD was different in the past. WTF?
Also, our existing available_templates.cfg, using old XML DTD, seems to work (not tested all possible scenarios) as long as we only use the old roles (author, editor, ...). When we try to give a WF to the new reviewer role, it doesn't work in the old syntax, but does work when using new syntax.
Que!?
Finally, I'm wondering about available_templates.ipl. This used to be the script that parsed the .cfg. Now, the .ipl seems to be still there, and still the same, but unused? With the .cfg/.dtd all changed, it can't be that available_templates.ipl is the script for parsing available_templates.cfg. Also, available_templates.ipl is no longer mentioned in the WF doc, as it was before... Is there another script that parses the new-style .cfg?
Comments and suggestions welcome!
/upgrading TS always raises the stress levels :-/

As far as it is supporting your earlier formatted cfg file, there is no harm in changing the DTD.

Also, what i have read all about in PDF, it is not that big change which should be mentioned in the release note. However, you should be happy as it is been given within PDF, else after sometime you woudl come to know through your practical exposure only.

Migrateduser

As far as it is supporting your earlier formatted cfg file, there is no harm in changing the DTD.

Also, what i have read all about in PDF, it is not that big change which should be mentioned in the release note. However, you should be happy as it is been given within PDF, else after sometime you woudl come to know through your practical exposure only.

What a weak justification. Interwoven should be ashamed of their documentation, or lack of it. For as long as I've worked with TeamSite and workflow, which is about 8 or 9 years now, the docs have been horrendously bad. Especially the workflow docs. And the new Workflow Modeler User's Guide is no exception. It is seriously lacking in detail and examples for the more advanced components.

I am not going to be happy to have to do a scavenger hunt for changes in significant functionality from version to version. Interwoven needs to update their docs when things change. Make the docs more robust and useful.

It's not surprising to me that the post frequency here on DevNet has appeared to slow to a crawl since I was last here. I wonder if the customer base has decreased?

ISCBorisB

It's not surprising to me that the post frequency here on DevNet has appeared to slow to a crawl since I was last here. I wonder if the customer base has decreased?

It's even worse than it looks. What's left includes extra traffic for LiveSite and WorkSite as well

Frederik

As far as it is supporting your earlier formatted cfg file, there is no harm in changing the DTD.

but I'll emphasize: as soon as you try to use a flex-role that has a name different from the author, editor, admin, master series, the old format does break (according to quick testing).

ccprofessional

but I'll emphasize: as soon as you try to use a flex-role that has a name different from the author, editor, admin, master series, the old format does break (according to quick testing).

maybe I don't understand the issue here... but why would you use a 6.7.1 feature (flex roles) with an older dtd?

Also, unlike templating.xx.dtd there is only one dtd for available_templates (no version info in dtd name)

Adam Stoller

maybe I don't understand the issue here... but why would you use a 6.7.1 feature (flex roles) with an older dtd?

Also, unlike templating.xx.dtd there is only one dtd for available_templates (no version info in dtd name)

If the DTD changed - it was probably changed internally (Interwoven has a history of publishing a DTD for reference but not actually using it internally as such) - so the underlying code may be able to figure out which DTD you're "using" based upon one or more elements present in the configuration file.

If that's the case - then if you have an old copy of the configuration file (from an upgrade for example) and you are trying to use flex roles using the pre-existing format of the configuration file - you could run into this problem.

Note: The above is all theoretical on my part because I don't have a 6.7.1 server to play with right now.

ccprofessional

Thanks Fish.

Interwoven has a history of publishing a DTD for reference but not actually using it internally as such ... - so the underlying code may be able to figure out which DTD you're "using" based upon one or more elements present in the configuration file.

Now that is a conspiracy theory! ;-)

Not saying all conspiracy theories are without merit.