The Altair Community is migrating to a new platform to provide a better experience for you. In preparation for the migration, the Altair Community is on read-only mode from October 28 - November 6, 2024. Technical support via cases will continue to work as is. For any urgent requests from Students/Faculty members, please submit the form linked here

Possible error in RapidMiner_Unuk rev 733

UrhixidurUrhixidur Member Posts: 40 image Contributor II
edited November 2018 in Help
Just downloaded rev 733 and was in the process of updating my rev 708 when I ran across this odd difference:

The files in \resources\com\rapidminer\resources\buildingblocks have had their extensions change from .buildingblock to .buildingbloc. Even curiouser, buildingblocks.txt still lists them as *.buildingblock.

Here are some other truncated file names:
\src\com\rapid_i\deployment\update\client\listmodels\TopDownloadsPackageListModel.jav
\src\com\rapidminer\gui\new_plotter\configuration\AxisParallelLinesConfiguration.jav
\src\com\rapidminer\gui\new_plotter\configuration\AxisParallelLinesConfigurationListener.jav
\src\com\rapidminer\gui\new_plotter\configuration\EquidistantFixedBinCountBinning.jav
\src\com\rapidminer\gui\new_plotter\configuration\event\AxisParallelLinesConfigurationChangeEvent.jav
\src\com\rapidminer\gui\new_plotter\engine\jfreechart\actions\ManageParallelLinesAction.jav
\src\com\rapidminer\gui\new_plotter\engine\jfreechart\actions\AddParallelLineAction.jav
\src\com\rapidminer\gui\new_plotter\engine\jfreechart\actions\ClearParallelLinesAction.jav

instead of *.java

There are more.  Was my tarball corrupted weirdly by the svn server, or is this a real problem?
Tagged:

Answers

  • UrhixidurUrhixidur Member Posts: 40 image Contributor II
    A different problem crops up with rev 733 once imported into Eclipse.  One error, oodles of warnings.  The error is: 

    The type DriverAdapter must implement the inherited abstract method Driver.getParentLogger()	DriverAdapter.java	/RapidMiner_Unuk/src/com/rapidminer/tools/jdbc	line 40	Java Problem
    The missing method is in fact in the source code, but commented out.  Should it be uncommented?
  • aborgaborg Member Posts: 66 image Contributor II
    I think your problem is related to using Java 7, which might cause problems, as the bundled JRE for RapidMiner (5.2) is a Java 6 VM. The referenced method is @since 1.7, so that is the reason it does not compile. (I think the next version will be based on Java 7.)
  • SkirzynskiSkirzynski Member Posts: 164 image Maven
    I have checked out the latest SVN repository entry from Sourceforge, as well as the downloadable zip file and can not confirm any of your errors. Maybe there were some glitches in the Sourceforge Matrix...
  • Nils_WoehlerNils_Woehler Member Posts: 463 image Maven
    Hi,

    yes this method has to be implemented since Java 7. Currently we are working with Java 6.
    But the next release should depend on Java 7.

    Best,
    Nils
  • UrhixidurUrhixidur Member Posts: 40 image Contributor II
    Nils wrote:

    yes this method has to be implemented since Java 7. Currently we are working with Java 6.
    But the next release should depend on Java 7.
    I've added a "//@since 1.7" line to the DriverAdapter method in order to explain the "error" when I run into it. I've since configured Eclipse to use a Java 1.6 target.
  • UrhixidurUrhixidur Member Posts: 40 image Contributor II
    Marcin wrote:

    I have checked out the latest SVN repository entry from Sourceforge, as well as the downloadable zip file and can not confirm any of your errors. Maybe there were some glitches in the Sourceforge Matrix...
    I've downloaded the rev 734 tarball and the problem recurred.  I think it is because of McAfee Web Gateway.  Our firewall uses MAWG, and when I download the tarball MAWG downloads it to its own private storage, scans it, and then allows me to download it.  I've always thought it gave a link to its original download, but maybe it unpacks the tarball, scans it, and then packs (incorrectly) a new copy for delivery to me.  Hard to be sure, but it's a good hypothesis.
  • UrhixidurUrhixidur Member Posts: 40 image Contributor II
    Could I get the SHA-1 or MD5 signatures of the rev 734 tarball so I can tell whether or not MAWG tampered with it?
  • UrhixidurUrhixidur Member Posts: 40 image Contributor II
    Maybe it's not MAWG after all. The tarball is fine when I open it using Ubuntu's Archive Manager.  But WinZip (14.5.9095) shortens extensions as I've mentioned earlier.  Weird.
Sign In or Register to comment.