Is community components available for ver 6.1
Author: streak
Creation Date: 8/3/2011 7:10 AM
profile picture

streak

#1

I do not wish to upgrade my main installation from WLD6.1 to WLD6.2 yet due to 'open issues', but need to get Community Components loaded.

I have Community.Components_2011.07.wle on my test machine which is WLD6.2

The file is only 5kb so I figure its not the full box of tricks.

Can I use this to get Community.Components onto my WLD6.1 installation or can I download an appropriate version from the WL site?

Thanks
Jon
profile picture

Eugene

#2
Yes, you can install the old version of the extension for 6.1 with that file. A .WLE is a "bootstrapper" file used to install/update an Extension.
profile picture

streak

#3

Thanks for the quick reply Eugene.

I copied the file Community.Components_2011.07.wle into \MS123\ but when trying to open it from the Extension Manager a msg says ""Extension requires Wealth-Lab Developer version 6.2 or later."

Is there an appropriate .wle version for WLD6.1 ?

profile picture

Eugene

#4
My mistake, the change already was checked in for 2011.07 and you need version 2011.02 or lower.

You have the source code from the Wiki, compile it and it might work after rolling back a couple of changes in two places in public SystemPerformance runDonor which are highlighted with:
CODE:
Please log in to see this code.

profile picture

Eugene

#5
QUOTE:
Is there an appropriate .wle version for WLD6.1 ?

No, we do not plan for downgrades and do not keep older versions of .WLE files.
profile picture

streak

#6

Hopefully I can make your suggestion work, as I cannot upgrade to 6.2 because of the "Named DataSeries bugs". Its a catch22.

So before I try, just to check...

QUOTE:
You have the source code from the Wiki, compile it...


Is this the VC#2010 solution that you remember I downloaded from Wiki a month or so ago? If so, then are you suggesting I can just compile it and drop the dll into \MS123\ bypassing the bootstrapper .wle (I've never understood bootstrappers too much)?

hmmm...
QUOTE:
...after rolling back...

Got me! Have found an error in Utility.cs SystemPerformance runDonor() method, which I'm guessing is what your saying to "roll back". The line;
CODE:
Please log in to see this code.
is underlined in 'wavey' red, with a 'tooltip' message;
QUOTE:
The best overlaoded method macth for... has some invalid arguments"


If this is what is to be rolled back, I do not know how to do it.

Do I just comment it out?

And then I cannot find the second of
QUOTE:
two
places?

Also am I guessing right that a complie should be targeted for .Net Framework 2.0 ?

Thanks
Jon
profile picture

Eugene

#7
The source code that I'm talking about is version 2011.08 in the Wiki, recently uploaded. To make it work with 6.1, one just has to unroll a couple of lines that are documented. The "old" line that was there before 6.2 is on top of the new one, commented. It is super easy.

If you have downloaded the project before (version 2011.02 as I recollect), then even better. It will work out of the box w/o any modification given that the reference to WealthLab.dll points to the DLL in Wealth-Lab 6.1 main directory. Otherwise (if it's pointed to the 6.2 DLL) it will give a compile error, precisely for the reason the change was made in later versions of Community.Components (i.e. starting from 2011.07): to make the library compatible with 6.2.

Target platform in all cases should be .NET 2.0. Hope this helps.
profile picture

streak

#8

First tried 2011.02 and there was an error as I mentioned earlier, so went to 2011.08 and get pretty much the same....

[IMG]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

Not sure where to go?
profile picture

Eugene

#9
Carefully re-read my reply above for hints. I have nothing else to suggest. Good luck.
profile picture

Eugene

#10
...Except for one thing: please consider exploring the large number of free web resources, books, online tutorials on VS. Our support doesn't include teaching how to work in Visual Studio.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with that, but you can opt-out if you wish (Read more).