Liferay? More like deathray ...



  • As an R&D exercise, no, don't laugh, we've been trying to set up Liferay as a WSRP producer and SharePoint as a WSRP consumer.

    All very well till you come to learn that Liferay is v2.0 compatible and SharePoint is only v1.1 compatible.

    For some reason the Liferay boffins deliberately removed the option to set up a Liferay producer as version 1.1, so you have to do it programmatically.

    The only problem with this is that there exists no reliable documentation, just "documentation by anecdote" on the Forum, with a "We haven't got round to writing the documentation for this, but I'll add it to the FAQ page on the Wiki." Over a year later and the documentation still has not been written.



  • I think I can sense an anti-OSS blakeyrant coming.



  • We're beginning to wonder whether we're on not so much the bleeding edge of technology as the vomiting edge.



  • @Anonymouse said:

    I think I can sense an anti-OSS blakeyrant coming.

    Other than SharePoint I don't even know what any of those things were. So if you do get anti-OSS ranting, it's only because you just pointed out to me that one or more of those things is OSS! It's fucking 12 Monkeys all up in here, man.



  • Watch out, it's also written in Java! RRAAUAURHAUHGUAHRUHFURAHRUAHUARFYUAGSGDHKAWUF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:O

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's fucking 12 Monkeys all up in here, man.

    That is pretty much the only self-consistent time travel movie I have ever seen. Nothing else comes close. Primer may be a distant second, but only because the future starts leaking into the present near the end of the movie. If it had been that way from the start then it would have won.

    Regardless, I think you're pretty much destined to give a rant at this point, even though you nothing about Liferay. Maybe that's why you give the rant? We shall see as the future unfolds...



  • @QJo said:

    As an R&D exercise, no, don't laugh, we've been trying to set up Liferay as a WSRP producer and SharePoint as a WSRP consumer.

    I'm going to assume that this gibberish is something about World of Warcraft.



  • @QJo said:

    We're beginning to wonder whether we're on not so much the bleeding edge of technology as the vomiting edge.

    WSRP v2 was released like three and a half years ago. That's less bleeding edge than Windows 7... do you use that on your workstations?



  •  WSRP in Cincinnati.   That brings back memories.



  • @Xyro said:

    Watch out, it's also written in Java! RRAAUAURHAUHGUAHRUHFURAHRUAHUARFYUAGSGDHKAWUF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:O

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's fucking 12 Monkeys all up in here, man.

    That is pretty much the only self-consistent time travel movie I have ever seen. Nothing else comes close. Primer may be a distant second, but only because the future starts leaking into the present near the end of the movie. If it had been that way from the start then it would have won.

    You've never seen Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?



  • @fennec said:

    @Xyro said:
    Watch out, it's also written in Java! RRAAUAURHAUHGUAHRUHFURAHRUAHUARFYUAGSGDHKAWUF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:O

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's fucking 12 Monkeys all up in here, man.

    That is pretty much the only self-consistent time travel movie I have ever seen. Nothing else comes close. Primer may be a distant second, but only because the future starts leaking into the present near the end of the movie. If it had been that way from the start then it would have won.

    You've never seen Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?


    Or for that matter, Los Chronos Crimenes?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @superjer said:

    Or for that matter, Los Chronos Crimenes?
    That one was... weird.



  • @Xyro said:

    That is pretty much the only self-consistent time travel movie I have ever seen. Nothing else comes close. Primer may be a distant second, but only because the future starts leaking into the present near the end of the movie.
    Go back and watch Primer again.  You'll notice that the future starts leaking into the present fairly early in the movie.  I didn't catch it till I watched it a second time.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Xyro said:

    That is pretty much the only self-consistent time travel movie I have ever seen. Nothing else comes close. Primer may be a distant second, but only because the future starts leaking into the present near the end of the movie.
    Go back and watch Primer again.  You'll notice that the future starts leaking into the present fairly early in the movie.  I didn't catch it till I watched it a second time.

    You can complain about the time travel "rules" the film uses, but it is internally-consistent with its own rules. Which is much better than most time travel films manage.

    Obligatory Primer timeline. (Spoilers if you haven't seen it.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @Xyro said:

    That is pretty much the only self-consistent time travel movie I have ever seen. Nothing else comes close. Primer may be a distant second, but only because the future starts leaking into the present near the end of the movie.
    Go back and watch Primer again.  You'll notice that the future starts leaking into the present fairly early in the movie.  I didn't catch it till I watched it a second time.

    You can complain about the time travel "rules" the film uses, but it is internally-consistent with its own rules. Which is much better than most time travel films manage.

    Obligatory Primer timeline. (Spoilers if you haven't seen it.)

    It's a great movie, no doubt. My only complaint as far as time travel physics goes is that we witness things that could not have happened. For example, Aaron's phone should never have rang the first time around, because it should have been intercepted by his phone in his personal future, as was seen later on. His future phone should have been already contemporaneous with his "present" phone by that point.

    Now, I understand that the rules of the movie allow a dynamic re-writing of the timeline, but I don't find that particularly satisfying in comparison to, say, 12 Monkeys, in which the timeline, as twisted as it may be, is completely stable. In my opinion, a stable (or at least metastable) timeline is the only interpretation of time travel that makes physical sense. Assuming a stable, non-dynamic timeline is the best way to deal with otherwise confusing aspects of quantum mechanical experiments like the delayed choice experiment. It's not fate or destiny that determines 12 Monkeys' timeline or observing particles instead of waves, it's merely the only stable possible outcome. You wouldn't be able to observe unstable ones. And you shouldn't be able to observe Aaron's younger phone get called when his older phone intercepts it. Ya know?

    Doctor Who is entirely inconsistent because it's light-hearted and written by many authors besides. Nevertheless, it occasionally (and glibly) presents the Doctor saving the day via some information/plot device he got from his future. (Like how he got out of the Pandorica two seasons ago, then prevent his own death in the last season, as well as in the previous two red-nose specials, which were awesome.) I find this a completely legitimate way for a time-traveler to get by, because it's metastable. As long as there is any possible way for him to survive with the information/plot device, he can pass it back into his past and prevent the calamity. Even if his future calamity-bound self is just guessing at answers, if one of the possible superpositiony guesses works out in the slightest, it can be brought back into the past, refined, and perfected. The originator of the guess may be wiped out of the timeline (because it would be unstable at that point), but that doesn't matter because the information still survives in a stable timeline, and the stable timeline is the one that is observed. In fact, keeping the observed timeline stable while still preventing his death was a key plotpoint to the previous season. Doctor Who is pretty much the best ever.



  • @Xyro said:

    @QJo said:
    We're beginning to wonder whether we're on not so much the bleeding edge of technology as the vomiting edge.

    WSRP v2 was released like three and a half years ago. That's less bleeding edge than Windows 7... do you use that on your workstations?

    If only it were bleeding edge. Yes, the technology has been up and about for best part of a decade. So why is it that a) MicroSoft haven't got round to implementing v2 yet, even in its brand new version, and b) Liferay can't provide a stable and repeatable service for it, that even adequately logs when stuff goes wrong? It's like it's permanently on beta test.



  • @QJo said:

    @Xyro said:
    @QJo said:
    We're beginning to wonder whether we're on not so much the bleeding edge of technology as the vomiting edge.

    WSRP v2 was released like three and a half years ago. That's less bleeding edge than Windows 7... do you use that on your workstations?

    If only it were bleeding edge. Yes, the technology has been up and about for best part of a decade. So why is it that a) MicroSoft haven't got round to implementing v2 yet, even in its brand new version, and b) Liferay can't provide a stable and repeatable service for it, that even adequately logs when stuff goes wrong? It's like it's permanently on beta test.

    Ah, I see. To that, I only respond by directing you to the first two letters of WSRP and to the below tags which I use from time to time.



  • @QJo said:

    Yes, the technology has been up and about for best part of a decade. So why is it that a) MicroSoft haven't got round to implementing v2 yet, even in its brand new version,

    RSS2 has been around for a decade, but I don't bother moving away from RSS1. Why? RSS2 didn't add anything worthwhile.

    You're acting as if not upgrading is a bad thing. That's ridiculous and you're ridiculous for suggesting it. Plus we're talking about MICROSOFT here. If there's ONE THING Microsoft does when it comes to software development, it's not upgrading product they don't absolutely have to. (Look how long they let IE6 sit around when there was near-zero market pressure to upgrade it.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @QJo said:
    Yes, the technology has been up and about for best part of a decade. So why is it that a) MicroSoft haven't got round to implementing v2 yet, even in its brand new version,

    RSS2 has been around for a decade, but I don't bother moving away from RSS1. Why? RSS2 didn't add anything worthwhile.

    You're acting as if not upgrading is a bad thing. That's ridiculous and you're ridiculous for suggesting it. Plus we're talking about MICROSOFT here. If there's ONE THING Microsoft does when it comes to software development, it's not upgrading product they don't absolutely have to. (Look how long they let IE6 sit around when there was near-zero market pressure to upgrade it.)

    I know you have a reputation for being a bit of a mouthy so-and-so but there's no call for that sort of rudeness, despite the reputation of this place.

    It's not me that is being ridiculous. I have a potential customer requirement that SharePoint be used as an enterprise portal. In order to host the applications that we produce as our flagship product, in order to fulfil this customer requirement (however sensible or not) we suspect that we may be subject to another requirement that it be accessed as a WSRP Consumer in SharePoint.

    So as to make sure that we actually can do this (and so be able to tender for the business of this potential customer) I have to plug some bits together to see whether we can get them to work. We have already had some experience with Liferay (a previous customer requirement, naturally), so, as we have these things at our fingertips, we can conveniently deploy Liferay as a WSRP producer.

    However, on the back of what we have learned today, it appears that when Liferay moved to an implementation of WSRP v.2, they seem to have introduced a bug whereby their v.1 capabilities no longer function.

    What I believe is not ridiculous is expecting that two fairly high-profile products whose implementations of a supposedly language- and platform-independent standard of communication can't be got to work together because there is a serious incompatibility with the way they have implemented two different versions of a standard which should surely by now be mature enough that all these silly teething troubles should have been sorted out.

    Or is it just that our customers are ridiculous for requesting a technology that they have seen advertised that has never worked the way it has been planned to?



  • @QJo said:

    a bit of a mouthy so-and-so

    ... what does that mean? If you want to call me a fucktard, just do it. It's liberating.

    @QJo said:

    What I believe is not ridiculous is expecting that two fairly high-profile products whose implementations of a supposedly language- and platform-independent standard of communication can't be got to work together because there is a serious incompatibility with the way they have implemented two different versions of a standard which should surely by now be mature enough that all these silly teething troubles should have been sorted out.

    What I take issue with is your blaming of Microsoft. When Microsoft is doing nothing wrong here-- they decided not to implement v2 for some reason, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. They're under no obligation to implement v2, they probably saw no benefit to it, so they didn't do it.

    The only product here that's actually broken is Liferay. Shovel all your blame their way.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @QJo said:
    a bit of a mouthy so-and-so

    ... what does that mean? If you want to call me a fucktard, just do it. It's liberating.

    @QJo said:

    What I believe is not ridiculous is expecting that two fairly high-profile products whose implementations of a supposedly language- and platform-independent standard of communication can't be got to work together because there is a serious incompatibility with the way they have implemented two different versions of a standard which should surely by now be mature enough that all these silly teething troubles should have been sorted out.

    What I take issue with is your blaming of Microsoft. When Microsoft is doing nothing wrong here-- they decided not to implement v2 for some reason, fine. There's nothing wrong with that. They're under no obligation to implement v2, they probably saw no benefit to it, so they didn't do it.

    The only product here that's actually broken is Liferay. Shovel all your blame their way.

    I tend not to use words like "fucktard", as I prefer to believe that I have manners.


    We have indeed come to the conclusion that Liferay are at some considerable fault, having released a product with inadequate documentation, non-straightforward configuration and insufficient testing, but at the time I wrote the original post we were uncertain that there was a definite bug there.


    Having said that, there are certain advantages to WSRP 2.0 which we pride our products on being able to support, which, because of the (admittedly arbitrary) customer requirement, we will be unable to make use of. Hence the irritation with MicroSoft for being significantly behind the game. Yes, I know MS are renowned for being tardy with getting with the program, but that does not mean I am not justified in being annoyed with them as well as with Liferay.


    As it is, I am able to take the opportunity to familiarise myself with yet another enterprise server (WebSphere, I believe we'll try next) all on R&D time, so it's an ill wind and all that. As for my trusty colleague, he is happily reverse-engineering Liferay's source code to find and fix their bug for them. Happy time.



  • @QJo said:

    WebSphere



  • @QJo said:

    I tend not to use words like "fucktard", as I prefer to believe that I have manners.
     

    He prefers Mr. Fucktard.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Obligatory Primer timeline. (Spoilers if you haven't seen it.)
    I haven't seen it, and those are the most opaque spoilers ever.

     

    I feel I am now MORE compelled to watch the movie than if it hadn't been spoiled.



  • @Weng said:

    I feel I am now MORE compelled to watch the movie than if it hadn't been spoiled.
    I felt that way about Fight Club. When I first thought it was just a movie about a bunch of dudes who try to bash each other's face in in an underground parking garage, I had no idea why anyone would want to watch that. But then, when someone spoilered me by telling me that this one guy only exists in that other guy's head, that made me curious enough to want to see how that is played out in the movie, and so I went ahead and watched it, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

    I call this an "anti-spoiler".


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.