With the release of both PHP7 and Symfony3 this week, have Symfony3 been developed with PHP7 in mind?
To put it another way, if we have PHP7 installed and are starting a new Symfony3 project from scratch, do we run the risk of facing migration problems from within the Symfony framework?
PHP 7 is mostly backward compatible with 5.x versions. Most of the changes that are incompatible with previous versions consist of the removal of quirky features anyway. This is usually not the type of stuff SF developers tend to use.
And, yes, SF3 has been developed with PHP7 (and HHVM, by the way) in mind.
PHP 7 is backwards compatibly unless a featured has been deprecated. Symfony3 is 100% PHP 7 compatible and is built using PHP 7.
Related
I want to know what is the difference between installing HortonWorks HDP vs installing the components directly from Apache projects? One thing I can think of is that Horton works probably has the packages aligned so that the version of each component is compatible with that of the others within the suite, while getting them directly from Apache projects, I may have to handle version compatibility myself. Is that correct? Is there any other difference involved ignoring the support subscription aspect of it.
Thanks.
There are a lot of differences between "roll your own" and using a distribution. Some of the most obvious include:
All of the various components and versions have been tested and built to work together - incompatibility between versions (e.g. Hive, Hadoop, Spark, etc.) can be a painful problem to sort through on your own
Most distribution providers, including Hortonworks, will bring patches in from unstable releases into stable releases, so even for the "same" version (e.g. Hive 1.2.1) you're getting a better release than vanilla - these can include both bug fixes and "safe" feature changes
Most distribution providers, including Hortonworks, provide some flavor of centralized platform management. I'm a big fan of Ambari (the one that comes with HDP), for example - it makes configuration and monitoring significantly easier than coordinating a vanilla install
I would strongly recommend against trying to deploy vanilla, unless it's just for learning and playing. HDP community edition is free (both definitions) and a major improvement over doing it yourself. My last deployment of HDP was entirely based on the community edition.
I'm starting a new project that'll require Mono and mod_mono to run under CentOS. There are two versions of Mono: the release which is 2.10.8, and the development branch, which is 3.0.7 as of today.
I'm wondering what would be the right version to start. Obviously the stable version would be my choice, but I'm not sure what Mono 3.0 adds that could be missing from 2.10. Note that the project will be ASP.NET 4.0, using MVC4.
What version would be recommended? The stable but older one (dates back from 19-Dec-2011!) or the more recent one?
Mono 2.10 supports ASP.NET MVC3, since you want to use MVC4, you'll have to use a later version.
More recent versions of Mono have solved a lot of issues in 2.10, including issues related to ASP.NET.
So you may want to go for a more recent version. I don't think stability will be an issue,
but you will have to perform proper tests to determine if the version you are using supports everything you are trying to do in your application.
Don't deploy to production without testing.
UPDATE: Correction, there is 'partial' MVC4 support in 2.10 and no support for async.
So while you might be able to use 2.10, your mileage may vary depending on what features your app uses
I'm trying to build an embedded simple web browser for an embedded device and I've decided to use WebKit / WebKitGTK+. However, our device uses a Linux environment somewhat based on CentOS 5.8. I haven't been able to find any RPMS or mention of support for WebKit / WebKitGTK+ for CentOS 5.8 while doing several web searches.
Does anybody know if it's possible to build an older version of WebKitGTK+ such as 1.2.6-2.el6_0 which works well on CentOS 6.3? Are any RPMS available for CentOS 5.8?
The goal here is to be able to run a relatively current, at least 1.2.6 version of WebKitGTk on CentOS 5.8
Note: I was able to sort everything out. Just took a long time compiling all of the dependencies in the correct order with the correct options. I was able to get WebKitGTK 1.6.0 running on Centos 5.8.
You shouldn't have any problems building an old version of webkit if you can install the older versions of libraries that it requires.
If you have older or newer versions of GTK+ etc installed than the old version of webkit requires it may need quite a bit of porting to compile.
I'm not aware of any RPMs that meet your requirements
Depending on the compilation options you should be able to compile the dependencies in an isolated directory. With each library you typically use the --prefix option to specify the destination. Then when compiling something that depends on that library, you typically have an option to specify where to look for that library - something like --with-libraryname=/path/to/library. You want to check ./configure --help of each thing you're compiling to get the correct options.
It'll be quite a bit of work, but you should be able to compile everything you need into an isolated directory without replacing anything on the system. I would highly recommend you avoid doing this in root to ensure you have the right options.
Some questions about Simple.Data and Mono:
Can I safely choose Simple.Data for a new project using Mono today?
There is the intention to maintain Mono compatibility in future versions?
The features are the same as the version for Windows?
Some testimony from someone who has already used in Mono?
Many thanks!
There will be a new official Mono build soon as part of the RC process. For now you should be able to clone the GitHub repo (http://github.com/markrendle/Simple.Data) and build the latest version.
Mono support is a requirement of the project, and will continue in all future versions.
Everything that works on Windows and MS.NET should work on Mono on OSX and Linux. If you find that something does not work, that is a bug and should be reported at http://github.com/markrendle/Simple.Data/Issues .
I have not personally got any projects using Simple.Data on Mono, so I can't offer a real testimony, but there are ~700 tests which all pass using Mono 2.10 on Mac OSX against a SQL Server DB.
I'm just starting out in Ruby (Rails actually) and the book I'm reading covers Ruby 1.8.6, RubyGems 1.0.1, Rails 2.0.2 and SQLite 3.5.4, but the current stable releases of these are 1.9.1, 2.3.8, 1.3.7 and 3.7.0 respectively, should I still proceed with the book or find another?
Also, I couldn't find a recent guide/tutorial to walk me through the installation of these latest versions, would be great if you could help with that too. I'm on Mac OSX Snow Leopard (10.6.4).
Many thanks!
There are a large number of projects with major release milestones just around the corner. These include Ruby 1.9.2 (the 2nd RC is already out), Rails 3.0 (the RC is already out), and a number of other libraries and plugins. Please note that Rails 3 does not support Ruby 1.9.1, although it does support 1.8.7 and 1.9.2.
I would start out with Ruby 1.9.2-rc2 and Rails 3.0.0.rc. These are what will be the current version over the next few years, starting within the next few weeks. Previous versions of Ruby and Rails will be legacy.
Look for new editions of books coming out, having been updated for Ruby 1.9.2 and Rails 3.0.
I were like you. Although Ruby is popular, they are very bad and inconsistent in such kinds of various versions. Firstly, I thought that the latest version is always the best, which holds the true for most languages. Later, in these days, due to the removal, re-structure and redesign of logic and underlying codes, the latest version is not always good for programmers who are used to writing codes in older version. See python case (2.x vs 3.x).
So, for ruby, if you're holding a book that teaches you in ruby 1.8.x, then just relax and adhere to 1.8.x. Install 1.8.x version and Practice. Same for 1.9.x and other versions. Or else you'll end up with frustration like "why doesn't my code run?".
The most important thing is RubyGem. RubyGem is also stick to ruby version. Gems that run in 1.8.x are not usually compatible with 1.9.x. So, keep that in mind. Or else you're unhappy that you install this gem and you can't call it - its objects.
Now, my practice is that I install every version. I exclude ruby path and its lib in PATH variable. When I want to switch between each version, I use BAT/bash file that set variable for each version like PATH=$PATH:/opt/ruby18 .
I've also asked many questions about this in many forums. As you know, the life and true aspect of programming is to (re)use libraries and objects. If certain libraries don't work with a certain version of ruby, then you have to switch to others. This is also my bad feeling about ruby. They really should have backward compatibility.
Maybe others can solve this problem smarter than me. But it really messed up with my programming life.
Checkout RVM, use it to install different versions of Ruby/Rails on your machine without root access. It will make your Rails development easier :)
railstutorial.org walks you through the installation of everything you need on OS X. It's also more recent than the book you're using.
Take your pick, the Rails book or the version that you specifically need to learn.
Once you decide on a book, install the versions of the language / gems as mentioned in the book. e.g. Rails 1.2 and Rails 2.0 had pretty big differences and the tutorials wouldn't work.
If you're learning Rails, pick a well known book, install the specific gems. Once you're done with the book, you'd be in a better position to look at the differences and migrate to higher versions with less hassle.
gem list rails --remote
gem install [gemname] --version [version]