The message simply states that the newer version of FME has detected some problems with the workspace that the original version couldn't detect. So in principle you can safely ignore the warning, although I'd make some extra tests to verify the results compared to previous runs.
I agree that continuing development on such an old workspace can feel like a step back, especially when you know how much more compact and efficient you could've made it with a more recent version of FME. In this situation I'd try to explain / justify to the client why refactoring the workspace would make sense.
The message simply states that the newer version of FME has detected some problems with the workspace that the original version couldn't detect. So in principle you can safely ignore the warning, although I'd make some extra tests to verify the results compared to previous runs.
I agree that continuing development on such an old workspace can feel like a step back, especially when you know how much more compact and efficient you could've made it with a more recent version of FME. In this situation I'd try to explain / justify to the client why refactoring the workspace would make sense.
I agree on your second point @david_r, they are running error messages apparently. I need to sit down with them and check their entire environment.
Hi Lyes,
I would definitely recommend re-creating the workspace(s) to the customer.
A good argument could be improved performance (next to increased options on functionality).
And FME 2008 is officially no longer supported. That counts as an argument for most customers too.
Erik
Hi Lyes,
I would definitely recommend re-creating the workspace(s) to the customer.
A good argument could be improved performance (next to increased options on functionality).
And FME 2008 is officially no longer supported. That counts as an argument for most customers too.
Erik
I agree. I tend to be careful about using improved performance as an argument, as I've seen that that's not always (no longer) the case. I've seen some examples where workspaces running in FME 2014 were an order of magnitude faster than the latest incarnations.
Personally I usually go for the arguments a) FME version is no longer supported, and b) workspace maintenance will be easier, since it can be made more compact with fewer transformers.
I agree. I tend to be careful about using improved performance as an argument, as I've seen that that's not always (no longer) the case. I've seen some examples where workspaces running in FME 2014 were an order of magnitude faster than the latest incarnations.
Personally I usually go for the arguments a) FME version is no longer supported, and b) workspace maintenance will be easier, since it can be made more compact with fewer transformers.
Agreed, but I have never seen a case where FME 2008 was faster than FME 2017.
Hi Lyes,
I would definitely recommend re-creating the workspace(s) to the customer.
A good argument could be improved performance (next to increased options on functionality).
And FME 2008 is officially no longer supported. That counts as an argument for most customers too.
Erik
I agree with both of you @erik_jan,and @david_r
Yes, it used to be that we would ignore attributes that were missing. For example, if you told the AttributeRemover to remove MyAttribute, and MyAttribute didn't exist, then all would be OK (at least Workbench wouldn't complain, though the translation might have errored).
Now (and since 2012) we've become stricter and would flag that transformer as having an error. That way the translation wouldn't fail.
So the dialog is saying that something in the workspace refers to an attribute that doesn't exist. The "workaround" is to let FME flag up these issues so that you can fix them. If you want to run it in a newer FME then I don't see another way. I don't see any use in opening it in a series of other versions.
Since that workspace is now nearly 10 years old, yes, it's probably time to consider updating it to the latest FME (though once you have fixed the attribute references it *should* work fine)
Hi Lyes,
I would definitely recommend re-creating the workspace(s) to the customer.
A good argument could be improved performance (next to increased options on functionality).
And FME 2008 is officially no longer supported. That counts as an argument for most customers too.
Erik
Yes, 2008 is no longer supported, but I think a workspace created in 2008 should be. If it failed in 2017 then I think we'd still want to do something about that. Still, I don't like to think anyone is still using FME2008! It would be pretty old technology now.
Thank you @david_r, @erik_jan ,and @Mark2AtSafe for confirming that the best is update the workspaces.
The message simply states that the newer version of FME has detected some problems with the workspace that the original version couldn't detect. So in principle you can safely ignore the warning, although I'd make some extra tests to verify the results compared to previous runs.
I agree that continuing development on such an old workspace can feel like a step back, especially when you know how much more compact and efficient you could've made it with a more recent version of FME. In this situation I'd try to explain / justify to the client why refactoring the workspace would make sense.
This answers is correct as well. just that I cannot accept more than 2 sorry ... I just + it
