Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] Protege 3.4.8: Forms broken for included Projects on Protege Server

Timothy Redmond tredmond at stanford.edu
Sat Nov 10 09:05:26 PST 2012


On 11/10/2012 05:22 AM, Hanno Wunderlich wrote:
> Hi Tania,
>
> thanks for the information. Unfortunately it was planned to do a 
> companywide rollout of Protege 3.4.8. I think i will have to copy the 
> forms information from the included Project to the other one (I 
> already have a little tool that does the work).
>
> Is there any possibility to get more detailed information what has 
> changed between the releases. The 3.4.8 release notes did not mention 
> any changes on the client-server part of protege.

The previous method of transferring the project information from the 
client to the server was always very slow.  It involved numerous 
interactions between the client and the server.  We had been aware of 
this problem for some time but for most pprj files the overhead was 
acceptable.  But we had some complaints that for large .pprj files, the 
startup of the Protege client was impossibly slow.

What we did was to implement a new mechanism where the .pprj files are 
simply copied from the server to the client and parsed on the client.  
This mechanism runs far faster but it leads to the difficulty that you 
are having with imported forms.

-Timothy



>
> Hanno
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Tania Tudorache 
> <tudorache at stanford.edu <mailto:tudorache at stanford.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Hanno,
>
>     Indeed, the forms inclusion is not working after Protege 3.4.7
>     version. We have implemented a new way of sending the pprj info
>     from the server to the client, which is much faster than before.
>     You will notice that clients load much faster now. The part of
>     code that did the forms inclusion had to be dropped in the new
>     implementation. Adding it back would require some effort.
>
>     My suggestion is to use an "older" version of Protege, like 3.4.7
>     that still uses the original way of loading the remote pprj. The
>     other changes we have done to the code are quite minor, so you
>     would still be up to date, and have the forms working.
>
>     Tania
>
>
>
>
>     On 11/09/2012 05:57 AM, Hanno Wunderlich wrote:
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     i'm currently testing to switch our Protege Server from version
>>     3.4.0 to 3.4.8.
>>     We are heavily using projects that are including other projects.
>>     For example we have a master project holding the classes, slots
>>     and the form information. Then there is a second project
>>     including the master project, that holds only the instances.
>>
>>     If I open the second project as a local project all forms are
>>     correct.
>>     If I host the second project on a protege server an access it
>>     from a client, the forms are broken.
>>
>>     I have also reproduced this behaviour with a fresh protege
>>     installation and a newly created project that includes the
>>     newspaper project from the examples.
>>
>>     I haven't checked the behaviour on versions between 3.4.0 and 3.4.8.
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     Hanno
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     protege-discussion mailing list
>>     protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu  <mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
>>     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>>
>>     Instructions for unsubscribing:http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     protege-discussion mailing list
>     protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>     <mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
>     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
>     Instructions for unsubscribing:
>     http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20121110/4e46cb20/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list