[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference bulova::decw_jan-89_to_nov-90

Title:DECWINDOWS 26-JAN-89 to 29-NOV-90
Notice:See 1639.0 for VMS V5.3 kit; 2043.0 for 5.4 IFT kit
Moderator:STAR::VATNE
Created:Mon Oct 30 1989
Last Modified:Mon Dec 31 1990
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:3726
Total number of notes:19516

1809.0. "X Toolkit warnings - version mismatches" by PRIMES::VAUGHN () Wed Nov 29 1989 09:14

  We recently upgraded our NI cluster to VMS 5.3 and DECWindows 2.0.  Since then,
we've been seeing some unusual warning messages when running windows versions
of some of our products.

VTX V4.0

X Toolkit Warning: Widget class DECterm version mismatch:
  widget 7001 vs. intrinsics 11003
X Toolkit Warning: Widget class Mullion version mismatch:
  widget 7001 vs. intrinsics 11003

Notes V2.0

X Toolkit Warning: Widget class Svn version mismatch:
  widget 7001 vs. intrinsics 11003

DECWrite V1.0 (shows up after printing)

X Toolkit Warning: Widget class PrintWidget version mismatch:
  widget 7001 vs. intrinsics 11003


I've made sure that we're running SDC versions of these products.  Also note
that the products continue to work properly; these are only warning messages.
The messages show up whether the application is run locally (via decterm) or
remotely via child.  Any ideas?  Thanks.

mike
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
1809.1XtVersionDontCheckHANNAH::MESSENGERBob MessengerWed Nov 29 1989 11:4211
Re: .0

The applications were compiled with a different version of the toolkit than
is in the V5.3 shareable libraries.  For example, VTX V4.0 is probably linked
with a version of the DECterm widget, TERMLIB.OLB, that is earlier than the
toolkit shareable library, DECW$DWTLIBSHR.EXE.   This shouldn't cause a
problem, but to avoid the warning message the DECterm widget needs to set
XtVersionDontCheck in its class record.  It does this in V2 (VMS V5.3), but
earlier versions of the DECterm widget still sets XtVersion.

				-- Bob
1809.2That's ok with me, but how about customers?PRIMES::VAUGHNThu Nov 30 1989 11:297
   That seems reasonable to me.  I guess the real issue here is that we have 
customers running this also, and eventually one of them is going to complain
about it.  Is there a way that this can be solved in the field, or does it
require new versions of the various layered products?

mike
1809.3To patch or not to patch...HANNAH::MESSENGERBob MessengerThu Nov 30 1989 13:266
Re: .2

I think it would be possible to patch each .EXE to fix up the widget class
record.  That would be up to the developers of the layered products.

				-- Bob
1809.4Is version mismatch still reality?PEACHS::BELDINMon Jan 15 1990 13:5715
>
>Re: .2
>
>I think it would be possible to patch each .EXE to fix up the widget class
>record.  That would be up to the developers of the layered products.
>
>                                -- Bob

Anybody know if SDC 5.3 and DECwindows V2.0 still exhibiting this behaviour?
Are the developers of the layered images going to patch every image or will
there be some sort of maintenance release to address this problem?  

Just wondering...

Rick Beldin
1809.5QUARK::LIONELFree advice is worth every centMon Jan 15 1990 14:344
Yes, it still happens with VMS V5.3.  It is the LPs' problem, not VMS.  But
the message has been harmless in every instance I have seen.

			Steve
1809.6KONING::KONINGNI1D @FN42eqTue Jan 16 1990 11:244
Extraneous messages that make users think there are problems are the
application's problem?  Why?

	paul
1809.7Upward compatibility can't ALWAYS work4GL::SCHOELLERWho's on first?Wed Jan 17 1990 22:3611
>Extraneous messages that make users think there are problems are the
>application's problem?  Why?

Because the applications are out of synch with the RTLs.  Though this is mostly
a non-issue there can be some problems (such as the problem with V2.0 of
VAXnotes and the V2 print widget).  Whenever such inconsistencies occur (we try
to keep them to a minimum) the layered products have to catch up.  There are
still sites within DEC running VMS 4.6 or 4.7 because the ISV products they use
have not (or have only recently) been upgraded to work on VMS 5.n.

Dick