TM1 Forum

We can't get the advanced rules editor to open in our Citrix sessions. There's a bit of debate about which version of .NET is required. Is it 1.1 or 2? Or what?

Cheers,
Martin

Never mind, I RTFM. It requires 1.1. 2.0 breaks it.

Martin

Martin Ryan wrote:Never mind, I RTFM. It requires 1.1. 2.0 breaks it.

Martin

This was a fight I had with support a while back. We were doing a single box install (Web, Server and EV). Reading the docs all needed a seperate version of the framework and each ones docs stated that installation of the other frameworks was not supported. When I raised this question to support I got a the docs are best practices type of response, and was told that their machines are configured with all components and the frameworks coexisting. So contrary to the docs 2.0 will not break it (at least from our experience) but it is not recommended unless absolutlely needed. It would be horribly nice if they were to standardize the frameworks, especially since 1.1s support lifecycle is coming to a close sooner than later.

It would also be nice if the 'advanced' rules editor actually...
worked.
Martin, how do you create area references with more than one dimension?

David Usherwood wrote:It would also be nice if the 'advanced' rules editor actually...
worked.
Martin, how do you create area references with more than one dimension?

Yes, well, er, why on earth would you want to reference more than one dimensions David? Absurd!

I came across this during a training session (because a training session is the only time you'll get me near the advanced rules editor. Long live .xru files) and was at a loss to explain it. Fairly glaring omission I'd have thought.

Martin

Martin

I'm just about to install the lastest Fixed Pack on 9.4, so I may take a look at the 'Advanced' Rules Editor again. However, in 9.1 it:

a) It actually made editing rules harder
b) It crashed a lot

You can disable the advanced rules editor with
AdvancedRulesEditor = F
in TM1P.INI

I still use the old rules editor.

As far as .NET goes, there should in theory be no reason why you can't have 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 all installed since they should all be upwardly compatible and each .NET object should know which framework it requires. However, I wouldn't want my life support machine to be running on it.

Regards

Paul Simon

PaulSimon wrote:As far as .NET goes, there should in theory be no reason why you can't have 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 all installed since they should all be upwardly compatible and each .NET object should know which framework it requires.

Yes, that's correct. I recall that when we started playing around with EV and Web under 9.1 one required .Net 1.1 and one required .Net 2.0. We installed both and had no problems, save for the one where we couldn't get EV to do even remotely what we wanted it to do. However I have machines which have all combinations of the framework from 1 to 3 on them, and not even necessarily installed in order. The various .Net frameworks seem to lead separate lives for the most part.

The documentation doesn't actually say that installing 2.0 breaks the editor... just that if you don't have 1.1, it won't work.

But of course it's academic for those of us who recognise the virtues of .xrus.

PaulSimon wrote:However, I wouldn't want my life support machine to be running on it.

Yeah, well, that applies to most MS software. What's that you say, Vista? "Windows Explorer has stopped working, gathering information, this could take a few minutes"?

Oh my. That comes as a surprise.

The day must have a "Y" in it.

In the past I haven't encountered any issues from running multiple .Net frameworks. In 9.4 at least the rules editor and web are standardised on .Net 3x.

Rules editor seems moderately more stable in 9.4 over 9.1 but they still haven't solved selecting from more than one dimension in the area statement (or an array of elements from a single dimension for that matter).