Non-static method t3lib_extMgm::typo3_loadExtensions() should not be called statically - typo3

I'm trying to setup a local instance of my typo3 project. which was built in typo3 4.1.
For the purpose of upgrading to 6.2 I've to setup a dev instance in my machine. But it shows a lot of warning and errors. Is it due to php version ie, 5.4 in my machine?. I dont know what exactly creates this error.
Thanks in advance...

I found the answer myself. I know that it's strange. But when I've updated the TYPO3 core to 4.5 the installation/ modification of compression level value is failed.
$TYPO3_CONF_VARS['BE']['compressionLevel'] = '3'
I set this value to zero
$TYPO3_CONF_VARS['BE']['compressionLevel'] = '0';
Now the warnings and errors are gone. Any idea about this answer will be highly appreciated.

Related

Using swift 3 migrator more than once

My current code is in swift 2.2 and i want to migrate it to swift 3.0 so what is the best way to migrate the code? Should i use migrator or should i use manually.
Regarding migrator i tried it once and there very bunch of errors still after migration was completed and then i need to manually fix the issues. So am i doing it correct?
I tried to use migrator tool more than once it still did fix some of the issues and then again i build it has still errors. Every time i build the code new issues comes up.
So what is the correct way to solve or migrate the code to swift 3.0?
You run the migrator once. You have to fix the remaining issues yourself. Running the same migration multiple times will not help you.
After the migration you will find errors. After fixing those errors new ones will show up. You have to continue fixing them all manually.
I had around 100 compile errors in total, tracked back to 13 compile time issues. Until now I have found 2 fatal runtime issues. One runtime issue only manifests itself on iOS 10.
I have written a detailed blog post about my own app migration.
Basically, you shall go through this migration guide first: https://swift.org/migration-guide/
Normally we use Conversion Wizard provides by Apple first, and we fix the remaining issues manually.
It's tedious but no perfect solutions yet...

Sitecore.Forms.MVC.dll 8.0 to 8.1 removed classes : FieldModel & SectionModel

I am in the process of converting the deprecated methods & classes of WFFM from 8.0 rev.150429 (Update-3) to 8.1 rev. 151008 (Initial release). Sitecore provided a good documentation > release notes for the 'breaking changes' that would occur when converted to WFFM 8.1.
Link to release note:
https://dev.sitecore.net/Downloads/Web%20Forms%20For%20Marketers/Web%20Forms%20For%20Marketers%2081/Web%20Forms%20For%20Marketers%2081%20Initial%20Version/Release%20Notes
And that includes moving some classes from Sitecore.Form.Core.dll to Sitecore.WFFM.Abstractions.Actions.dll (okay I understand).
However, though I am not really sure, maybe I just couldn't locate the right page/site, but there were also some changes made in the Sitecore.Forms.MVC 8.0 to 8.1 which were not documented. To be specific, classes are as follows:
Sitecore.Forms.MVC.Models.FieldModel (removed in Sitecore.Forms.MVC 8.1)
Sitecore.Forms.MVC.Models.SectionModel (removed in Sitecore.Forms.MVC 8.1)
Maybe there were also other classes that were removed, as well. But I am only concerned about the above two (2) classes for the mean time.
So, I'd like to know if someone already ran into this scenario before when upgrading WFFM to 8.1 and how you were able to resolved the issue?
I have a hint that I just have to look for the NEW DLL that uses or implements the FieldModel and SectionModel, but again, I couldn't find it as of this writing.
Appreciate any help. Thanks.
There is no FieldModel and SectionModel anymore, but I assume you are looking for the FieldViewModel and SectionViewModel. They can be found still in Sitecore.Forms.Mvc in the Sitecore.Forms.Mvc.ViewModels namespace.
If you need more specific classes, you can check the Sitecore.Forms.Mvc.ViewModels.Fields as well - or open the Sitecore.Forms.Mvc dll with a decompiler (as I did).

Inno Setup: Constant for latest FrameWork

I would like to know if there is a constant like {dotnet40} that would find the latest installed NET framework on the user's computer, no matter which one that would be?
Something like {dotnethighestavailable}?
Thank you very much for the help!
No, there is no such constant {dotnethighestavailable}. It would be useless anyway because you need to consider that not always you will have the latest Inno Setup release which would reflect the most recent .NET framework.
If your question has been raised because you are missing a {dotnet45} constant, then I would refer you to this post, where is written that .NET 4.5 framework is in the same directory as .NET 4.0 and so you can use the {dotnet40} constant.

TinyMCE upgrade an modified editor to the latest version mayhem

It is this sad moment to a developer's life that he has to maintain and fix legacy code... In my case I have to deal with a modified (core scripts) tinyMCE 3.2.2 which I have to update to the latest version in order to play in IE9+...
So my question is if there is a way to check which files have been changed since version 3.2.2 and try to update only those cause it is an overkill to check all the code for the modifications...
Thanks in advance
I fear there are so many changes in so many files that most of them have changed since then and in order to work with IE9.
If possible you should never ever modify the core code. Instead use custom plugins if possible.

Zend Framework 1.9~ and PHP 5.2.11 Compatible?

I have a problem here. My Zend_Forms do not render in view script.
Via FirePHP i have spotted a lot of "Need PHP 5.3 to get value"
Could someone confirm?
What should i do if i have PHP 5.2.11?
Thanks!
Yes. They are compatible. I am not aware of any features that would require 5.3.
Install XDebug or Zend Debugger to see what's wrong.
They weren't supposed to be using anything that would require PHP 5.3 until ZF2.0 (which, if you read the blogs, is due soon). Did you download the framework manually, or are you tracking it via an svn:external? If you are, you may want to do it differently as from here on in we're likely to see new code requiring 5.3 being checked in.